HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4723 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Vedika Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated February 27, 2025 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 2020-21. 3. Upon a perusal of the documents, it appears that the order was passed ex parte and was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and for subsequent date no notice was given to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shiv Contractor And Supplier, (Legal Name Rahul Sachan) .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 quite 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 February 27, 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. The writ petition is disposed of. September 26, 2025 Rakesh WTAX No. 4723 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad