M/S Nepal Timber And Wood Arts vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nepal Timber and Wood Arts, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 18, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 11, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The impugned order was passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the order was issued 612 days after their reply was filed. Furthermore, they alleged that no personal hearing was granted to them, and the order was uploaded on an additional tab instead of the main portal. The respondent was the State of U.P. and two others.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated October 18, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 11, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 74 of the CGST Act, is quashed and set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the inordinate delay of 612 days in passing the order after the reply was filed. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The manner of uploading the order on an additional tab was also considered a procedural flaw. The Court directed the concerned authority to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated October 18, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 11, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 74 of the CGST Act, is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it was passed after an inordinate delay of 612 days from the filing of the petitioner's reply. 2. Whether the impugned order is vitiated due to the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, as mandated by principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the manner of uploading the order on an additional tab, rather than the main portal, renders the order procedurally flawed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the significant delay in passing the order after the filing of their reply demonstrates a lack of diligence and potentially prejudice. They further contended that the failure to provide a personal hearing violates their right to be heard, a fundamental principle of natural justice. The petitioner also highlighted the improper uploading of the order as a procedural irregularity. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.