HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4249 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Chhaya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the assessing authority dated 01.02.2025 on the ground that it is an ex parte order. 3. As the petitioner could not supply reply to the notice issued to him on 22.09.2025 his appeal has come to be dismissed without considering this aspect of the matter that petitioner has not been heard in the matter and hence could not set up a valid defense inasmuch as the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical set of facts, in Writ Tax No.2920 of 2025, the Court has interfered with and passed the following order: "4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chhaya Gautam, Sanyukta Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Aditi Granite .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner Grade -2 And Another .....Respondent(s) Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:31108-DB. The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below:- "8. Thus relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in M/S Videocon D2H Limited and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (2016) 93 UPTC 237, M/S Aroma Chemicals Vs. Union of India & Ors Neutral Citation No.-2014:AHC:60699-DB, it has been submitted, such an order may not stand. ...... 10. Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 06.11.2023 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on the date fixed on 06.11.2023. 11. By not passing the order on 06.11.2023 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct." 5. In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra), we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated April 3, 2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 5. In view of the above therefore more especially in the circumstances when the appeal itself has been dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court finds is more appropriate to remit the matter to the assessing authority to decide afresh after considering the reply of the petitioner. Petitioner is also directed to submit reply to the notice within a period of four weeks from today and the moment respondent-appellate authority receives reply of the petitioner it shall proceed to pass final order giving WTAX No. 4249 of 2025 2 opportunity of hearing. Needless to add, order to be passed by the assessing authority shall be reasoned and speaking one. 6. The ex parte order passed by the assessing authority dated 01.02.2025 under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as order of assessing authority dated 04.08.2025 are hereby quashed. 7. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed as above. September 16, 2025 Deepika WTAX No. 4249 of 2025 3 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad