M/S Sports House Mobile Division vs. State Of U.P. And Another

WTAX/2462/2025HC AllahabadGSTCNR UPHC01257276202521 May 20253 pages

For Petitioner: Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ashish, Bansal, Siddharth Yadav

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sports House Mobile Division, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that despite seeking adjournments and requesting the supply of documents, including the S.I.B. report which formed the basis of the notice, and also seeking a personal hearing, the reply was filed on 04.02.2025. On the same day, the impugned order was passed without granting a personal hearing or supplying the requested documents. The petitioner argued that this action violated principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act.

Held

The Court held that the order impugned dated 04.02.2025 was ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act. This section mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted wherever demanded, especially before passing an adverse order. The Court noted that the petitioner had made specific prayers for a personal hearing and for the supply of documents. It was admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided, and the impugned order did not reference the petitioner's demand for documents. Consequently, the Court found that the order could not be sustained. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 74(9) of the GST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act, specifically for not providing an opportunity of personal hearing and not supplying requested documents. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the authority failed to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard in person, including the opportunity for cross-examination. They specifically requested a personal hearing and the supply of supporting documents, including the S.I.B. report, upon which the notice was issued. The petitioner contended that passing an adverse order without fulfilling these requests is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Standing Counsel attempted to support the impugned order.

Sections Cited

Section 74(9), Section 75(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86522-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2462 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Sports House Mobile Division Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Yadav,Ashish Bansal,Siddharth Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., Ankur Agarwal Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-12, Prayagraj under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Submissions have been made that after seeking several dates for adjournment and making application seeking supply of documents including the S.I.B. report which had formed the basis for issuance of notice under Section 74 of the Act, the reply was filed on 04.02.2025 seeking opportunity of personal hearing as well as supply of documents, however, neither opportunity of personal hearing was granted nor the documents were supplied and on the same day i.e. 04.02.2025, the order impugned was passed. 3. Submissions have been made that the action of the authority in not providing opportunity of personal hearing and passing the order without supplying the requisite documents is contrary to principles of natural justice and provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Standing Counsel attempted to support the order impugned. 5. A perusal of above reply filed by the petitioner reveals the following prayers: "(i) Please allow us fair, real and reasonable opportunity of being heard in person before passing any adverse order. (ii) Please grant opportunity of personal hearing before passing any

adverse order. (iii) Please also allow opportunity of cross examine to the related parties before passing any adverse order. (iv) Please consider our submissions as stated in this reply. (v) Please consider supporting documents which has already been submitted before the investigating officer and is hereby submitting along with this reply. (vi) Please provide us supporting documents on which basis this notice has been issued including copy of INS-01, before passing any adverse order that's we able to submit detailed reply. (vii) Please dropped the proceedings."

The petitioner had made specific prayer seeking opportunity of personal hearing and supply of documents. Admittedly, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner and there is no reference in the order impugned regarding the demand made by the petitioner for supply of documents.

In view of above fact situation, the order impugned is ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act requiring grant of opportunity of personal hearing wherever demanded and before passing adverse order.

Consequently, the order impugned dated 04.02.2025 cannot be sustained, the same is, therefore, quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, State

Tax, Sector-12, Prayagraj for providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law.

10.

With the above direction, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Sandeep/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR 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.