M/S Jai Vindhya Udyog Thru. Its Partner Niraj Kumar Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance) Lko. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of GST Act was dismissed as being beyond limitation. Operative disposition: Matter is remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of GST Act was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bonafide firm doing its business in accordance with law and claimed ITC. It is stated that a notice was served on 06.08.2021 intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny.

4. From the record, it appears that a show-cause notice under Section 73 of GST Act was sent to the petitioner thereafter on 28.06.2022 and a reminder was sent on 22.08.2022. As the petitioner did not file a reply, an order came to be passed on 29.08.2022 without providing an opportunity of hearing in terms of the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on the ground of being beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has challenged both the orders i.e. the order passed under Section 73(9) of GST Act as well as the order-in-appeal, however, he lays emphasis in challenging the original order whereby the demand under Section 73(9) of GST Act was confirmed, however, without providing for an opportunity of

6. From the records as produced by learned Standing Counsel, in the notice issued under Section 73 of GST Act, the date by which the reply was to be submitted was mentioned as 27.07.2022, however, date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing were not indicated and simply the word "NA" was transcribed. Even in the reminder notice sent to the petitioner, in the coloumn of date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing, "NA" was transcribed.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the records produced by learned Standing Counsel in terms of the order passed by this Court on 03.10.2023.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

9. Considering the fact that the original order is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also violative of principles of natural justice, the order dated 29.08.2022 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.

11. Matter is remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with law.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Jai Vindhya Udyog Thru. Its Partner Niraj Kumar Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance) Lko. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: by means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 107 of gst act was dismissed as being beyond limitation. operative disposition: matter is remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 190 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of GST Act was dismissed as being beyond limitation. Operative disposition: Matter is remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107 and the decision date 2023-10-09; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Jai Vindhya Udyog Thru. Its Partner Niraj Kumar Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance) Lko. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 190 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-10-09. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73(9) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 75(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST DELHI EAST ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY