BharatTaxGST

M/S Enormous Industrial Trade PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P And Another

Original PDF →
WTAX/2194/2025HC AllahabadGSTCNR UPHC01233414202512 May 20252 pages
For Petitioner: Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi ShuklaFor Respondent: C.S.C.. Ankur Agarwal (S.C.), Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice, Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J., This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78098-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2194 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Enormous Industrial Trade Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State of U.P and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.. Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Kanpur, wherein demand to the tune of Rs. 5,77,009/- has been created.

2.

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (for short 'the Act') on 24.12.2023 wherein the date of submission of reply and date of personal hearing were indicated as 24.01.2024. The petitioner filed reply on 31.01.2024. The order impugned has been passed on 25.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the petitioner has filed its reply on 31.01.2024 and order was passed almost three months thereafter on 25.04.2024, it was incumbent on the authority to provide opportunity of hearing before passing of the said order in terms of the provisions of Section 75 of the Act, on failure thereof the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

4.

Submissions have been made that petitioner filed its reply inter alia producing documents and conciliation statements in relation to Input Credit (IGST and SGST). The authority, without providing opportunity of hearing, has passed the order dated 25.04.2024

inter alia on the ground that the plea raised in the reply cannot be matched from the portal.

5.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing. Section 75(4) of the Act requires that in case the authority intends to pass an order against a person, he is required to provide an opportunity of hearing. Once the response filed by the petitioner purportedly did not match with the portal and the authority came to the conclusion that the plea raised was not acceptable, it was incumbent on the authority to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on failure of providing opportunity of hearing, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

6.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure-1) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Kanpur, who is directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 AHA/Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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.