Heera Nutritech Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
Heera Nutritech Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a demand order dated 18.08.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria. The order was passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the impugned order did not comply with the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, as it failed to set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision, merely referencing previous notices. The respondent, State of U.P. and others, attempted to support the order but did not dispute that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Court in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P.
Held
The Court held that the demand order dated 18.08.2024 was unsustainable as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section mandates that the proper officer, in their order, must set out the relevant facts and the basis of their decision. The impugned order, similar to the one in the cited precedent M/s Hari Shanker Transport, merely referenced the show cause notice without providing an independent basis for its decision. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 18.08.2024. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria, with a direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice within four weeks. Thereafter, a fresh order was to be passed in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that statutory requirements for passing a self-contained order, including stating the relevant facts and basis of decision, must be adhered to, even if no response is filed to the notices.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand order dated 18.08.2024, issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed and set aside for non-compliance with Section 75(6) of the Act? The petitioner contended that the order failed to provide the relevant facts and the basis of the decision, making it unsustainable. They relied on the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. The respondent attempted to support the order but conceded that the issue was covered by the aforementioned precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91875-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2617 of 2025 Petitioner :- Heera Nutritech Private Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Raja Sahani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This writ petition is directed against the demand order dated 18.08.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector- 3, Deoria under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2019-20. 2. Learned counsel with reference to judgment in M/s Hari U.P. : Writ Tax No.606 of 2025, decided on 11.03.2025, made submissions that the order impugned does not fulfill the requirement of Section 75(6) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempted to support the order impugned, however, does not dispute that the issue as raised is covered by the judgment in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra).
In the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra), this Court, after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion:- "
A bare look at the order impugned dated 27.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the Act reveals that the same only makes reference to issuance of two notices, the fact that they have not been responded to, and a demand has been raised.
The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 27.04.2024. Even if no response was filed to the notices issued under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act, it was incumbent on respondent no.2 to pass an order in compliance of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act, as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notices while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2/Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, which response shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law be passed."
Admittedly, in the present case, the order dated 18.08.2024 also does not contain any reason and only the indication made in the show cause notice has been incorporated by reference and, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 18.08.2024 (Annexures - 1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria, who shall provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, which response shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today and, thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law be passed. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) NISITH DEY 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.