Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

The order dated 23.6.2020, passed by respondent no. 2 namely- Commercial Tax Officer, Kaushambi under Section 74 of the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the Assessment year 2018-19 is subject matter of challenge herein on two grounds. Firstly, that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before passing the order impugned and secondly about the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 namely- Commercial Tax Officer, Kaushambi to pass the order impugned.

On the first ground, it is admitted to the counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 12.2.2020 under Section 74 of the SGST Act, was served upon the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 24.2.2020. The date fixed in the said notice though was the holiday but opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner on the next working day. In view of this admission, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 23.6.2020 was passed without furnishing opportunity of hearing, cannot be entertained.

As regards, the merits of the objections taken by the petitioner, remedy before the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

With regard to the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 namely, Commerical Tax Officer, Kaushambi, along with the synopsis supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Circular dated 19.11.2018 addressed to Officers of the Trades Tax Department, U.P. issued by Commercial Tax Officer, U.P. Lucknow has been appended.

A perusal thereof indicates that the Commercial Tax Officer has been authorized to deal with the cases of trading units whose taxable trade turnover is in between 15 lacs to 25 lacs.

It is demonstrated by the learned counsel for the respondents from page ’32’ to the paperbook that in GSTR-3B of December, the petitioner had disclosed his taxable turnover of Rs. 2,20,240/-. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the taxable trade turnover of the petitioner is not more then Rs. 25 lacs. The plea of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, is found devoid of merits. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is open to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal.