The Allahabad High Court on October 6, 2025 heard a petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Kosikalan Mathura. Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Indrajeet Shukla stated that the order despite being an administrative action had no justification as an authority to fix a single date for filing reply and attending the hearing.
The petitioner challenged an order dated April 23, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for April 2018 – March 2019, contending that a single date of April 12, 2024 was fixed for both filing a reply and attending the hearing, contrary to procedural requirements. Following this, no order was passed on that date and the impugned order was subsequently issued on April 23, 2024, without prior notice to the petitioner. The respondents argued that the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings and thus suffered no prejudice.
The Court emphasized that the date for filing a reply must come before the hearing date, and that orders must be passed either on the hearing date or after communicating any rescheduled date to the petitioner. It took note of cases like Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, 2024:AHC:38820-DB, and M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P., 2024:AHC:31108-DB, which held that the date for filing a reply and the date of hearing should be different as per the instructions issued by the Commissioner, and that failure to communicate a new hearing date results in an ex parte order, violating the principles of natural justice.Therefore, the order dated 23.04.24 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to any reply by October 17, 2025 following which the respondent would fix a proper hearing date and communicate it to the petitioner. The petitioner was then required to cooperate and participate in the proceedings without seeking undue adjournments. Lastly, the Court expected the remitted proceedings would be concluded by November 30, 2025.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s) – Vishwjit
For the Respondent(s) – C.S.C
