M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading of unserviceable store goods under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and hence seeks to challenge the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in appeal by Additional Commissioner Grade II, first appellate authority. Operative disposition: With these above observations and directions this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025
• 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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40393 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 699 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading of unserviceable store goods under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and hence seeks to challenge the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in appeal by Additional Commissioner Grade II, first appellate authority.

3. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that that order of assessing officer fastening the petitioner concerned with a liability of tax upon the sale for the relevant financial year in question alongwith interest and penalty in purported exercise of power under Section 73 of the GST Act, is absolutely ex parte one as neither alleged show cause notice was ever brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, nor service of the same was physically ever effected upon petitioner. Petitioner got knowledge of the proceedings conducted its back when the order came to be uploaded on the dash board with the tab "view additional notices and orders".

Thus, it is argued that petitioner having failed to notice, the notice GST DRC- 01A, it could not make any reply at all. 4. It is also claimed that the order dated 30.12.2023 was also not communicated on e-mail to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that no sooner did petitioner come to know the order of assessing officer in May, 2024, petitioner immediately preferred statutory appeal before first appellate authority, however, same has been rejected on the ground of it being barred by time. Thus, two fold submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner: i. In the absence of service of notice/ the show cause notice,

petitioner was denied opportunity to put up its defence so as to justify no liability of tax qua business of trading and sale under the GST; and ii. Remedy of appeal having been denied on the ground of delay that was for want of knowledge, petitioner has been rendered remediless. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that controversy qua issue of show cause notice not being effected upon for it being not available upon tab 'view notices and orders' at the GST Portal and then rendering the party defenseless in the matter of liability of tax under the GST Act is no more res integra. It is submitted that division bench of this Court in the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt.

Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024) has dealt with this aspect of the matter and it has been held that no material existed to reject the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that order impugned imposing liability of tax was not reflecting under tab 'view notices and orders' and so there remained a valid dispute as to non consideration/consideration of the various documents of returns available which could have been shown in reply to the show cause notice. 6. The division bench was of the view that party under liability of tax in an ex parte order needs at-least an opportunity to put up his defense by submitting papers which may have led assessing officer to uphold the claim for exemption from tax liability.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

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

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

State of U.p. and 3 Others , Writ Tax No. 2070 of 2024 decided on 3.12.2024 , the Court has set aside the identical order. Accordingly, I also do not find the orders to be sustainable and equally do not consider it necessary to keep this petition pending by inviting response. 10. In view of above, I hereby direct that the order passed by the assessing officer dated 30.12.2023 shall be taken to be notice within the meaning of Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 to enable the petitioner to file his objections and place its documents before assessing officer/ competent authority for its consideration. 11. The petitioner shall be submitting his reply alongwith document within a period of eight weeks from today and thereafter assessing officer/competent authority shall be giving due consideration to the objections and documents filed and opportunity of hearing as well and thus shall be taking decision afresh within a further period of four weeks. 12. With these above observations and directions this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 IrfanUddin

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution, petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading of unserviceable store goods under the goods and services tax act, 2017 and hence seeks to challenge the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in appeal by additional commissioner grade ii, first appellate authority. operative disposition: with these above observations and directions this petition stands disposed of. order date :- 20.3.2025 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. - 699 of 2025.

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 “Disposed” 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: Invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading of unserviceable store goods under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and hence seeks to challenge the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in appeal by Additional Commissioner Grade II, first appellate authority. Operative disposition: With these above observations and directions this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73—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 and the decision date 2025-03-20; 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 Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 699 of 2025, and the decision is dated 2025-03-20. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Ajit Kumar,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. 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 Disposed. 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 and later 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.

Case network

• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Graziano Trasmissioni v. Goods And Services Tax And 5 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published