M/S Dell International Services INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Deputy Commissioner, Noida Sector-13, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The petitioner contended that they were not granted a personal hearing despite specifically requesting one in their reply to the show cause notice. They also argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and failed to consider the voluminous evidence submitted by them. The respondent argued that the petitioner had already filed an application for rectification under Section 161 of the Act and should pursue that remedy. The petitioner offered to withdraw the Section 161 application.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, despite a specific prayer for it in their reply to the show cause notice. The Court found the impugned order to be cursory and not fulfilling the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, as the material produced by the petitioner had not been taken into consideration. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority must provide a personal hearing when specifically requested and must pass a speaking order that considers all material evidence submitted by the assessee. The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 28.02.2025 and remanded the matter back to the Authority to afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to withdraw their application under Section 161 of the Act within one week.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a personal hearing in violation of principles of natural justice, as required under Section 75(6) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that a specific request for personal hearing was made in their reply to the show cause notice, and the impugned order was passed without affording this opportunity. The respondent contended that the petitioner should pursue the remedy under Section 161 of the Act for rectification of the order. 2. Whether the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 is a non-speaking order that failed to consider the material produced by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the order was cursory and did not address the evidence they had submitted in their reply to the show cause notice. The respondent did not appear to make specific arguments on this point, other than the general contention regarding the Section 161 application.