The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns over the recurring practice of GST adjudication orders being passed and uploaded after the date fixed for hearing, particularly where the assessee has neither been informed of the subsequent date nor given notice that the matter would be decided later. 

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the issue has resulted in numerous cases reaching the High Court and requires a systemic solution rather than being addressed only on a case-by-case basis.

The petitioner challenged an order primarily on the ground that May 11 was not a date fixed in the proceedings and that the petitioner had received no notice or intimation regarding the passing of the order on that date.

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

The Bench noted that several matters were reaching the Court on identical or similar grounds, with adjudication or final orders being passed well after the last date fixed for hearing. According to the Court, this recurring practice raises an important legal question concerning the authority of adjudicating officers to pass an order on a date subsequent to the date fixed for hearing without any further notice to the assessee.

The High Court referred to its earlier decision in M/s Sun Glass Works Private Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others, where a learned Single Judge had taken the view that the authorities did not possess the power to reserve orders on the date fixed for hearing in a manner that would enable them to pass the order on a later date and subsequently upload it on the GST Common Portal.

That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 62531 of 2025, State of U.P. and Others v. M/s Sunglass Works Private Limited. However, the Division Bench specifically noted that no interim protection has been granted by the Supreme Court in the matter.

The Court observed that the controversy presents difficulties for both taxpayers and the State authorities. Assessees have a genuine grievance when orders are passed on dates for which no hearing was fixed and without any enabling provision or notice. At the same time, State authorities have contended that adjudicating officers may not always be practically capable of preparing detailed orders and uploading them on the very date on which the hearing concludes.

The Bench noted that the interval between the scheduled hearing date and the actual date on which the order is passed varies considerably. In some cases before the Court, the gap has extended to several months, giving rise to a further question as to whether an adjudicating authority can ever be permitted to pass an order after such a prolonged delay.

Where the delay has been excessive, the State’s counsel has, according to the Court, fairly agreed in some cases that the orders should be set aside and the proceedings restored to the adjudicating authority for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The position becomes more contentious where the delay is relatively short. In the present case, the delay was approximately one week, and an objection was raised that the assessee had not suffered prejudice because of the short interval.

The Bench observed that the problem is not confined to orders being passed after the scheduled hearing date. Another category of cases involves situations where the assessee is not provided a meaningful opportunity of hearing at all.

The Court referred to instances where the notice either does not specify the date or place of hearing, where insufficient time is granted, or where the date prescribed for filing a reply coincides with the date of hearing itself. The Bench noted that there are other variations of the same problem as well.

These observations place the issue in the broader context of procedural fairness in GST adjudication. The Court indicated that the recurring procedural difficulties make it challenging to maintain consistency in judicial orders because the circumstances vary significantly from case to case.

The High Court subsequently examined whether the existing statutory framework provides a mechanism for addressing the difficulty.

The Bench noted that Section 168 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 empowers the Commissioner to issue orders, instructions or directions. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) similarly has powers under Section 168. However, the Court observed that these powers are primarily intended to give effect to the provisions of the GST legislation.

The Court then turned to Section 172(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and Section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deal with the removal of difficulties in implementing the GST legislation.

Under the provision quoted by the Court, where a difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Government may, on the recommendation of the GST Council, issue a general or special order published in the Official Gazette, provided that the measure is not inconsistent with the Act, rules or regulations and is necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty.

The Division Bench observed that, prima facie, Section 172 appears to provide a mechanism through which the Government, acting on the recommendation of the GST Council, could issue a general or special order to remove difficulties arising in the implementation of the Act, so long as such an order remains consistent with the statutory framework.

Importantly, the Court identified the GST Common Portal itself as a possible source of the recurring problem.

The Bench observed that the GST system and portal may presently not be equipped to permit an order passed on one date to be uploaded on a subsequent date. According to the Court, this appears to be the root cause of the litigation that repeatedly comes before it.

The Court indicated that the difficulty could potentially be remedied by enabling the Common Portal to allow adjudication orders to be uploaded within a reasonable period after they are actually passed. This observation suggests that the Court is looking beyond the individual dispute and considering a technological and administrative solution to the recurring procedural controversy.

The Court directed that the Union of India and GSTN be impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Bench directed that notice of the petition be served on the learned ASGI as well as Shri Gopal Verma, who were asked to obtain instructions on the issue.

The matter has been directed to be listed as a fresh matter on August 17, 2026, with directions that the names of the learned ASGI and Shri Gopal Verma be shown as counsel for the respondents. The order was passed on August 12, 2026.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Advocates Acting as Insolvency Professionals Can’t Claim GST Reverse Charge: Delhi High Court