Hiran Tobaco Factory vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon the filing of these objections within the stipulated time, Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the objections after granting the petitioner a personal hearing. The Court expected Respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders within the subsequent 15 days. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open for Respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders after following the prescribed procedure.
Facts
The petitioner, Hiran Tobaco Factory, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 30, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order imposed tax and penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the order was passed ex-parte, without providing them with any notice or opportunity for a personal hearing. The Revenue contended that the petitioner had received adequate notice, citing an email received by the petitioner's accountant, which was allegedly not conveyed to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically the absence of proper notice and personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the order imposing tax and penalty was passed ex-parte, violating their right to natural justice as no adequate notice or opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The petitioner asserted that an email received by their accountant was not communicated to them, thus they were unaware of the proceedings. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the petitioner had received adequate notice of the show cause notice, pointing to an email received by the petitioner's accountant as evidence. They argued that this email constituted sufficient notification of the proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193674-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1018 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hiran Tobaco Factory Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashonidhi Shukla,Vedika Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Ms. Vedika Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondents.
The grievance as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that an order dated 30.5.2022 have been passed imposing tax and penalty upon the petitioner exercising powers under Section 74 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. 3. The challenge has been laid on the ground that no notice or opportunity as well as personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the order has been passed exparte.
Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel has invited attention of this Court to Paragraph 15 of the writ petition, which records the statement by the petitioner that an e-mail was received by the Accountant and it was not conveyed to the petitioner.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.