Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:157632-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. 3364 of 2025 M/s King Mobiles …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and others …..Respondents(s) With WRIT TAX No. - 529 of 2025 M/s King Mobile …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and another …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 3 HON’BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON’BLE PRAVEEN KUAMR GIRI, J. 1. The above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The instruction, as received by the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the petitioner did not appear before the authorities, does not appear to be correct as the impugned orders dated 2 March 3, 2025 and April 1, 2025 clearly indicate that the petitioner had appeared on several occasions and filed several replies. It further appears that the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ECL’) had been blocked in the month of August, 2023 and after passing of the several orders on March 3, 2025 and April 1, 2025, the amount of Rs.1,96,98,709/-, lying in the ECL of the petitioner, was appropriated by the authorities. 4. Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire action of the authorities in passing of the impugned orders and the subsequent action of debiting the entire amount present in ECL of the petitioner, is without any jurisdiction, perverse and against the principles established in law. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned orders, it does appear that there are certain contradictions in the impugned orders wherein at one place there is recording that the petitioner did not appear while subsequently appearance of the petitioner and filing of several replies are recorded in the impugned orders themselves. We further find that the impugned orders are basically just cut and paste of the replies of the petitioner, and thereafter, without taking into consideration the replies of the petitioner, cryptic orders fastening liability on the petitioner has been passed. It is to be further noted that the order has been passed one month after the last date of hearing. It is to be noted that a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:31108-DB has held that once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing, it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and necessarily communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. In light of the above, impugned orders are not valid. The actions of the respondents have left the petitioner in a position where it cannot even file an appeal as the entire amount lying in the ECL has been debited. 3 7. Accordingly, we are of the view that the petitioner should be granted another opportunity to file a comprehensive reply to all the show notices that have been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file comprehensive replies to each of the show cause notices within a period of three weeks from date. Subsequently, a personal hearing should be granted to the petitioner, and thereafter, proper and reasoned order should be passed by the authority concerned. The amount that has been debited by the authorities, is directed to be reversed to the ECL of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from date. 8. We make it clear that since the period for blocking of the ECL under Rule 86A UPGST Rules has expired, the authorities shall not block the ECL and shall allow the said amount for use by the petitioner for its business. 9. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) September 4, 2025 Kuldeep Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad