JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Ghazipur under Section 73 (8) U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2018-19.

3. Briefly, it is submitted that the impugned order is wholly ex parte. It has been passed denying the petitioner, opportunity of hearing. Referring to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 10.6.2022, it has been submitted that date for personal hearing was fixed 24.6.2022 whereas date for final reply was fixed thereafter on 9.7.2022. Then it has been submitted that though the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed for personal hearing, no other date for hearing was fixed and no order or notice was served on the petitioner. The order impugned was not passed on the date fixed but about five months thereafter on 30.11.2022.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner failed to file any reply and to make any application to submit any reply even after the due date fixed in the notice dated 10.6.2022 had expired. Then, it has been submitted that the petitioner chose not to file any appeal against the impugned order dated 30.11.2022. He approached the Court with delay.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it is not in doubt that rules of natural justice have been breached. The adjudicating authority ought to have fixed reasonable date for filing reply and for personal hearing. That procedure was not followed. It may be true that the petitioner may have been at fault in not filing reply on the date fixed and having not filed any application thereafter. Yet, the adjudicating authority chose not to pass any order and did not fix any other date for hearing in the matter for a long period of five months.

6. We see no reason for the adjudicating authority to pass that ex parte order, without any further notice. Since no order had been passed on that date, the adjudicating authority was obligated to fix another date. To that extent the petition must succeed. However, at the same time, there is fault on the part of the petitioner in neither filing appeal within limitation nor approaching this Court within reasonable time. Therefore, equities have to be balanced.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation, in case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.75,000/- before the adjudicating authority-respondent No.2 within three weeks from today, the impugned order shall stand set aside. Further, petitioner may file its reply to the contents of the notice and the order within a period of two weeks thereafter.

8. If such compliance is made by the petitioner, the adjudicating authority may fix a fresh date and proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner before this Court undertakes not to take any undue adjournment in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority.