HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2189 of 2026 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Office to correct the computerized record to reflect the name of the petitioner as 'Shankar Trading Company' and not 'Shakar Trading Company'. 2. Heard Shri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dhananjay Awasthi and Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Present petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2025, whereby penalty has been confirmed against the petitioner M/s Shankar Trading Company, arising from show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 issued under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the challenge to Notification no. 2/2022 dated 11.03.2022 and further Notification no. 27/2024 dated 25.11.2024, as also the amending Notification no. 2/2017 dated 19.06.2017, is not pressed. 5. Accordingly, prayer no. 3 is rejected as not pressed. 6. On the issue of prayer no. 1 and 2, it is seen that the show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 has culminated in the order dated 22.12.2025. Also no jurisdictional error may exist in that show cause notice. 7. Further, almost two years have passed since issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, challenge to show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 may Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Pandey, Srestha Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi M/S Shakar Trading Company .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) also not succeed. 8. As to the challenge to the order dated 22.12.2025 confirming various demands of penalty, amongst others it has been strenuously urged that at the initial stages of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He was enlarged on bail late in the year 2025. Therefore, he could not fully respond to the show cause notice. In any case, the reply filed by the petitioner has not been considered. Practically, on an ex-parte consideration, the demand of penalty has been confirmed. In that regard, it has also been contended that part of the proceedings are barred on the test of section 6(2)(b) of the Act. Also objection has been raised as to composite notice being without jurisdiction. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would contend that the issue of composite notice has been answered against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue by earlier decision of a coordinate bench in M/S SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and 5 others, 2026:AHC:14559-DB. At the same time, with respect to denial of opportunity of hearing, it could not be denied that petitioner had remained confined and that at present, it may be arguable that due opportunity of hearing has remained to be granted to the petitioner and if the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered. 10. On further query, Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue also informed that the similar cases arising from the same show cause notice, other proceeding have been remanded to the adjudicating authority, to pass fresh order after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. The present writ petition is disposed of on the following terms : (i) The impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order. (ii) For that purpose, the Adjudicating Authority may issue to the petitioner, a fresh copy of the original Show-Cause notice together with copies of RUDs and a list of non-RUDs. That compliance may WTAX No. 2189 of 2026 2 be made within a period of two weeks from today. (iii) Upon receipt of such communication, the petitioner may apply to the Adjudicating Authority - to be supplied any other document including copies of non-RUDs, within a further period of one week therefrom. (iv) Subject to such compliance, the application moved by the petitioner may be considered by the Adjudicating Authority within a further period of one week. Copies of all other documents to be supplied to the petitioner may be made available within that time. If copy of any document or non-RUD, is to be declined, adequate reasons may be communicated to the petitioner, within that time. (v) Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority may fix appropriate date in the proceeding with atleast 15 days advance notice. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment. (vi) At that stage, if the revenue seeks to rely on statement of any person, recorded during investigation etc., the same would necessarily be made available to the petitioner on the date fixed in the proceedings. On that date itself, the petitioner may apply for opportunity to cross-examine any witness being relied by the revenue. (vii) Wherever the revenue seeks to rely on adverse statement made against the petitioner, normally opportunity of cross-examination, if prayed for, may be allowed to the petitioner. If such opportunity is to be declined, adequate reasons for the same may be communicated to WTAX No. 2189 of 2026 3 the petitioner within a week of its application. (viii) Accordingly, the proceedings may continue such that the same may be concluded within a period of six months from today, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. May 5, 2026 Bhanu WTAX No. 2189 of 2026 4 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad