Mittal Agro Private Ltd. Thru. Its Director Shri Sukkhu Lal Chandwani v. Commissioner ,Commercial Tax,U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-7) passed against the petitioner under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 as well as the appellate order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure-1), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Operative disposition: The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to pass an order on the appeal of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing and considering the material on record, 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. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-7) passed against the petitioner under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 as well as the appellate order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure-1), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The submission in brief is that the petitioner is a firm dealing with sell etc. and duly registered under the GST Act. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 26.03.2022 purported to be under Section 73 of the GST Act mainly on the ground that he claimed ITC without authorization. The said allegation was founded on the basis that the firm, based on whose supplies the ITC was availed, was not in existence.

4. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said show cause notice and denied the allegations. Along with the said objection, he specifically stated that the petitioner had claimed the benefit based upon the documents, which were uploaded and the entire transactions were through the banking channels. Despite the said objection and without there being any consideration on these aspects, the order dated 24.06.2022 came to be passed against the petitioner under Section 73 of the Act assessing the ITC to be paid by the petitioner. The said ITC was directed to be paid along with penalty. The total amount assessed was Rs.26,95,757.40. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and along with memo of appeal, the entire documents including the case laws were appended, however, without considering any of the material appended along with the memo

of appeal, an appellate order came to be passed on 04.07.2023 dismissing the appeal, which is impugned in the writ petition.

5. The appellate order records that despite opportunity neither the representative of the department appeared nor did the petitioner appear, however, dealing with the submissions of appeal on merit, the appellate authority without application of mind or considering the documents, upheld the assessment order passed against the petitioner.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record, which was produced by the learned Standing Counsel in pursuance to the order dated 10.10.2023.

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

8. It is settled that a non speaking order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thus, on the limited ground of not considering any material whatsoever and the order being a non-speaking order, the order dated 04.07.2023 is quashed.

9. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to pass an order on the appeal of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing and considering the material on record, in accordance with law.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Mittal Agro Private Ltd. Thru. Its Director Shri Sukkhu Lal Chandwani v. Commissioner ,Commercial Tax,U.P. Lko. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2022 (annexure-7) passed against the petitioner under section 73 of the gst act, 2017 as well as the appellate order dated 04.07.2023 (annexure-1), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. operative disposition: the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to pass an order on the appeal of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing and considering the material on record, 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. 201 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 “Remanded / fresh adjudication” 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: The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-7) passed against the petitioner under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 as well as the appellate order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure-1), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Operative disposition: The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to pass an order on the appeal of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing and considering the material on record, 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—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 2023-10-17; 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 Mittal Agro Private Ltd. Thru. Its Director Shri Sukkhu Lal Chandwani v. Commissioner ,Commercial Tax,U.P. Lko. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 201 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-10-17. 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. 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 Remanded / fresh adjudication. 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.

Case network

• M/S. VALLABH TEXTILES v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX GST, DELHI EAST AND ORS — Delhi High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• Deepanshu Srivastava v. Union Of India Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue Directorate Gst Intelligence Lko. Zonal Unit — Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• Mahavir Polylast Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• M/S Ankit Motors v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY