M/S Jai Maa Sarveshwari Movers (Through Its Partner Sri Unnat Kumar Singh) vs. State Of Up And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jai Maa Sarveshwari Movers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that although the impugned order mentioned 31.08.2024 as the date for personal hearing, no such intimation was uploaded on the portal. Instead, only the due date for filing a reply, 30.08.2024, was reflected. The petitioner argued that having already filed a reply, they were deprived of a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondent authorities, through learned Standing Counsel, submitted instructions indicating that 30.08.2024 was fixed for personal hearing and that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. A screenshot of the portal was annexed, showing 30.08.2024 as the due date for reply/personal hearing, but without any attachment.
Held
The Court held that there was an apparent communication gap regarding the date of personal hearing. The petitioner's login portal indicated 30.08.2024 as the due date for reply, with no attachment, while the respondent authorities, unaware of this reflection, did not attach the intimation for personal hearing. Consequently, the petitioner, having already filed a reply, did not appear on 30.08.2024, leading to the deprivation of a personal hearing. The Court found that this violated the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Authority to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing in violation of Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby vitiating the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that no intimation for personal hearing was uploaded on the portal, and only the due date for filing a reply was reflected. Since a reply had already been filed, the lack of a proper personal hearing opportunity rendered the impugned order invalid. Respondent's Contention: The respondent authorities contended that 30.08.2024 was fixed for personal hearing, and as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the order was passed. They provided a portal screenshot indicating 30.08.2024 as the due date for reply/personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87954-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2096 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Jai Maa Sarveshwari Movers (Through Its Partner Sri Unnat Kumar Singh) Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ashish Bansal, Shalini Goel Counsel for 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 order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act').
Submissions have been made that though the Deputy Commissioner, in his order impugned, has indicated that 31.08.2024 was fixed as date of personal hearing, no such intimation was uploaded by the respondents on the portal and only due date of filing reply as 30.08.2024 was reflected and as the reply had already been filed, for lack of opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the Act, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
Instructions have been produced by learned Standing Counsel, inter alia, indicating that on 29.08.2024, 30.08.2024 was fixed as date of personal hearing and as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the order impugned was passed. Along with instructions, screenshot of the portal has been annexed, perusal whereof indicates due date to reply/PH as 30.08.2024, however, no attachment was uploaded. However, the screenshot of the portal
from the petitioner's login indicates that 30.08.2024 is indicated in the column pertaining to 'due date to reply' and there is no attachment.
Apparently, the respondent, being unaware of the reflection on the petitioner's login portal, has not attached the intimation pertaining to the fixing the date for personal hearing and apparently, the petitioner having already filed reply, did not appear on 30.08.2024. 5. Based on the said apparent communication gap, the petitioner has been deprived of personal hearing.
Consequently, the order impugned dated 31.08.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Authority to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Mukesh Pal/P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) MUKESH PAL 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.