Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State. In response to our order dated 31.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that date and time of personal appearing is mentioned in show cause notice, which is sent online, when the Assessing Officer deems it fit to grant personal hearing and is of the opinion that some records may have to be produced, which was not done in this case. He says that the alleged reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, as claimed, is in fact addressed to the Commissioner and he has instructions to state that no such reply to the show cause notice was given to the Deputy Commissioner who has issued the notice for imposing penalty.

Moreover, he says that that order of penalty is appeallable under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Learned counsel for petitioner says that such writ petitions are maintainable on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, however, we find that in this case a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. When we asked learned counsel for petitioner as to where is the reply to the show cause notice he invited our attention to a document which is annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 31.08.2021 which is addressed to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow.

At this stage we can not say that no opportunity of hearing was given, as, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he could have filed a reply. If the reply which has been addressed to the Commissioner is the one filed in response to the show cause notice, then, it is a moot point as to whether it is in accordance with law. Moreover, we asked learned counsel for petitioner as to whether opportunity of being heard would necessarily mean a personal hearing, he could not place any decision before the Court that it would be so, therefore, we leave all these questions to be raised before the Appellate Authority by the petitioner. We also take note of submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the reply to the show cause notice was also required to be submitted online (as per Rule 26 read with Rule 142 of U.P. GST Rules, 2017) and not in hard copy and that it had to be submitted to the Officer who had issued the notice, which has not been done.

We do not wish to say much on these aspect as we are of the opinion that all the pleas, which are being raised herein or which otherwise may be available to the petitioner, can be raised in appeal under Section 107 of U.P. GST Act, 2017, therefore, in view of availability of this efficacious remedy we dismiss this writ petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail the same.