M/S Lawrie Electric Works Thru. Prop. Ahmadullah Ishrat vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case were similar to the facts in the previously decided case of Writ Tax No. 1147 of 2025. The Court found that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the original authority failed to pass an order on the date fixed for hearing and did not communicate any subsequent date to the petitioner. This conduct by the authority led to the ex-parte nature of the order. The appellate authority, by dismissing the appeal without addressing this procedural flaw, also erred. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside both the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 13.02.2025 and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15.09.2025. The Court directed the concerned authority to grant the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order passed without proper notice or opportunity of hearing violates natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Lawrie Electric Works, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Lucknow, which dismissed their appeal. This appeal was against an order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow, under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner contended that both the original order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte. They argued that the original order was not passed on the date fixed for hearing, and no notice was given for subsequent dates. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in Writ Tax No. 1147 of 2025, which dealt with similar facts. The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 13.02.2025 (passed by the Assistant Commissioner) and 15.09.2025 (passed by the Additional Commissioner, Appeals) are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were passed ex-parte, in violation of the principles of natural justice, as per Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act and Section 107(1) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the original order under Section 73 was passed ex-parte, not on the date fixed for hearing, and without providing notice for subsequent dates. They further contended that the appellate order also suffered from the same defect. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Writ Tax No. 1147 of 2025, which held that an authority must either pass an order on the fixed date or communicate the next date to the party, and failure to do so renders the ex-parte order unsustainable. They also cited precedents like M/s Shubham Steel Traders, M/S Videocon D2H Limited, and M/S Aroma Chemicals. Revenue's arguments: The Standing Counsel for the State conceded that the petitioner's claim was covered by the aforementioned judgment in Writ Tax No. 1147 of 2025 and did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.