M/S Brand Eyes Distributors Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brand Eyes Distributors Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an ex-parte order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UPSGST Act, 2017, in the form GST DRC-07, dated April 17, 2024. This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-2, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner also sought a direction to re-adjudicate the show cause notice dated December 12, 2023. The record indicated that both the show cause notice and the impugned order were issued subsequent to the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner contended that none of the notices were served upon them.

Held

The Court held that since none of the notices, including the show cause notice dated December 12, 2023, and the impugned order dated April 17, 2024, were served upon the petitioner, both the notice and the order were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the failure to serve notice constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their case. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed without proper notice and an opportunity of hearing is void ab initio. The Authority was directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing by issuing notice through e-mail or registered post, and thereafter, to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated April 17, 2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UPSGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-service of notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice dated December 12, 2023, and the subsequent impugned order dated April 17, 2024, were passed without proper service of notice. This lack of service, they contended, rendered the proceedings ex-parte and violative of the right to be heard, necessitating the quashing of the order and a fresh adjudication. They sought a direction for the respondent to issue fresh notices and provide an adequate opportunity of hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.