The Allahabad High Court set aside a Section 74 order for 2023-24 because no fresh hearing was fixed in the seven months before it was passed, and left the jurisdiction objection to the adjudicating authority.

The Allahabad High Court has held that an adjudication order under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, 2017 cannot stand where the officer kept the proceedings pending for months without fixing any further hearing and then decided them on the taxpayer’s written reply alone. [Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3138-HC(Allahabad)-GST]

A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi set aside the order dated 3 Sep 2025, arising from a show cause notice (SCN) dated 2 Jan 2025 for 2023-24.

The SCN fixed a reply date and a personal hearing in February 2025. The petitioner replied on 29 Mar 2025, stating that bulky supporting documents would be produced at the hearing and asking for a hearing date. No further date was fixed before the order was passed.

The petitioner argued that the SCN was void for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, that it was denied a hearing. The Standing Counsel submitted that an appeal lay against the order and that the Revenue would not object if one were filed within two weeks.

The Bench declined to examine jurisdiction in writ proceedings, as the petitioner had known of the SCN for ten months without challenging it and had participated by filing a reply. It held that Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others ((2023) 109 GSTR 402) does not require a writ court to intervene whenever lack of jurisdiction is alleged.

On the hearing, the Bench noted that Section 75(5) normally allows three adjournments, yet none was sought or granted over seven months and no further notice was issued. A reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, it held, is a sine qua non before an adjudication order, and it had been denied.

The order was set aside, and the authority was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, also deciding the petitioner’s objection on lack of jurisdiction under Section 74.

2026-juristway.com-3138-HC(Allahabad)-GST