Case Details: R.P. Industries vs. State of U.P. (2025) 34 Centax 357 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Vishwjit, Counsel, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
A show cause notice was issued to the assessee, a registered purchaser, on the ground that the supplier was not found functioning at the declared place of business. The notice mentioned a date for filing reply, while the date of personal hearing was fixed prior to that, depriving the assessee of an effective opportunity to present its case. The assessee contended that the impugned demand order was passed ex parte without granting any proper hearing and that the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal without addressing this procedural lapse. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that fixing a personal hearing before the expiry of the time allowed for filing a reply amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity and violated principles of natural justice. Relying on Excellence Trades & Services Pvt. Ltd. [(2025) 34 Centax 308 (All.)] and Swiftline Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [(2025) 34 Centax 316 (All.)], the Court observed that the proceedings suffered from a procedural defect and the impugned order could not be sustained. Accordingly, the demand order was set aside, and the assessing authority was directed to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law.
List of Cases Cited
- Excellence Trades & Services (P) Ltd v. State of U.P. — (2025) 34 Centax 308 (All.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 9, 10]
- Swiftline Transport Solutions (P) Ltd v. State of U.P. — (2025) 34 Centax 316 (All.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 9, 10]
