JUDGMENT Alok Mathur, J. Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 19.5.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Lucknow thereby creating demands of Rs. 2,85,58,320/- against the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.10.2023 passed on the appeal by Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeal)-V, State Tax, Lucknow. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are a private limited firm registered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017) having its registration No.GSTIN-09AABC07253MIZZ. Petitioner-firm undertakes the business operations of as an advertising agency handling domains of indoor digital prints and outdoor advertising. It is further stated that they are doing business for more than two decades and have been filing returns regularly. 4. The present dispute pertains to the financial year 2018-19 where it seems that a survey was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and based upon the report of the said survey a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the adjudicating authority to produce the documents pertaining to financial year 2018-19. It seems that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority consequent to which order dated 9.6.2021 was passed creating demands against the petitioner and also levying penalty. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-V, State Tax, Lucknow which has also been rejected by means of the impugned order. It seems that after filing the said appeal the petitioner did not put in appearance before the appellate authority and in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate authority concurred with the assessment order passed by the adjudicating authority and upheld the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts considered by the adjudicating authority were incorrect in as much as the entire exercise is based on the fact that the petitioner did not file return for the financial year 2018-19. Controverting the same it was stated that the return for the financial year 2018-19 were duly filed by the petitioner which were placed on record by the adjudicating authority. Controverting the same it was stated that the return for the financial year 2018-19 were duly filed by the petitioner which were placed on record by the adjudicating authority. It seems that survey of the business premises of the petitioner was undertaken where documents and registers which were available on the business premises were seized from which it transpires that the petitioner has been conducting business from two accounts of the bank, namely, Karur Vysya Bank and one of the accounts Rs. 405.38 lakhs have been transferred while from other account Rs. 129.95 lakhs have been received and it was stated that a total transaction of Rs. 535.33 lakhs was done by the petitioner during the said period. It was further stated that for the said period the petitioner had filed his report of GSTR Form 3 B and disclosed business only for an amount of Rs. 207.988 lakhs and accordingly the remaining amount of Rs. 327.35 lakhs was not brought on record and consequently it was held that there was intention to evade tax and consequently due tax was imposed along with penalty. As the petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority the version of the petitioner does not find mention by the appellate authority while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has merely assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the entire exercise was conducted on the basis of the SIB report and it was stated that neither by the adjudicating authority nor by the appellate authority the petitioner was provided copy of the SIB report. It was stated that the petitioner was rendered remedy less in as much as he could not contradict the findings recorded in the SIB report as the copy of the same was never provided to it. It was further stated that by not supplying copy of the SIB report the claim of the petitioner has been severely prejudiced and it is on this ground that the petitioner could not substantially defend the orders passed by the adjudicating authority. 8. It is in aforesaid circumstances, that this Court had directed learned Standing counsel to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner was provided copy of the SIB report which forms basis of the entire assessment made against the petitioner ? 9. 8. It is in aforesaid circumstances, that this Court had directed learned Standing counsel to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner was provided copy of the SIB report which forms basis of the entire assessment made against the petitioner ? 9. Learned Standing counsel, on the basis of the written instructions received from Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Khand, Lucknow has informed this Court that the petitioner never demanded a copy of the SIB report. 10. Undoubtedly, from the aforesaid written instructions it is clear that the SIB report was never given to the petitioner and there is no dispute with regard to the same. Undisputedly, the entire assessment having been made on the basis of the SIB report it was incumbent upon the the adjudicating authority to have provided a copy of the same to the petitioner while issuing notice to him and not giving a copy of the SIB report has severely prejudiced the case of the petitioner and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the proceedings were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. Wherever any person is asked to give his response and the charges are bases on certain material and documents then it is mandated that the delinquent should be provided all the material on the basis of which the said charges are framed and by not giving such materials will severely prejudice the case of a person who is asked to respond to the said charges. In the present case not providing copy of the SIB report has severely prejudiced the case of the petitioner and accordingly on this ground alone the proceedings are arbitrary being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. In light of the above, the orders dated 19.5.2022 passed by respondent No.3 as well as the appellate order dated 25.10.2023 passed by respondent No.2, contained in Annexure No.2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition, are arbitrary and illegal and accordingly set aside. 13. The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to provide the petitioner a copy of the SIB report and any other material which forms basis of the demands issued against the petitioner. 14. Let the documents be given to the petitioner expeditiously, say within next two weeks. 13. The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to provide the petitioner a copy of the SIB report and any other material which forms basis of the demands issued against the petitioner. 14. Let the documents be given to the petitioner expeditiously, say within next two weeks. The petitioner will have liberty to respond to the allegations made in the show cause notice given to the petitioner previously and the response to the same shall be submitted within two weeks thereafter subsequent to which the adjudicating authority shall proceed to finalize the matter within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with law after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 15. In light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed.