M/S INDIA Pride Trading Company vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s India Pride Trading Company, is aggrieved by an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Ghaziabad, which created a demand of Rs. 7,71,482/-. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act on 23.12.2023, which did not specify a date or time for personal hearing, stating 'NA' instead. The petitioner filed a reply on 03.02.2024. The impugned order was passed approximately three months later. The petitioner contended that despite filing a reply and producing documents, the authority passed the order without providing a personal hearing, which was mandatory.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Ghaziabad, was unsustainable. The Court found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, despite filing a reply to the show cause notice. Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act mandates that if the authority intends to pass an order against a person, an opportunity of hearing must be provided. Since the petitioner's response was purportedly not found satisfactory, it was imperative for the authority to grant a hearing. The failure to provide this opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Ghaziabad, with a direction to provide an opportunity of 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, Ghaziabad, on 30.04.2024 is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that once they filed a reply on 03.02.2024 and the authority found it unsatisfactory, it was incumbent upon the authority to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, as required by Section 75 of the Act. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78545-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2199 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s India Pride Trading Company Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla, Parth Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- 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 30.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-5, Ghaziabad, wherein demand to the tune of Rs. 7,71,482/- has been created.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (for short 'the Act') on 23.12.2023, wherein no date and time for personal hearing was given and even in the column of date, time and venue, it was mentioned 'NA'. The petitioner filed reply on 03.02.2024. The order impugned has been passed on 30.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the petitioner has filed its reply on 03.02.2024 and order was passed almost three months thereafter on 30.04.2024, 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.
Submissions have been made that petitioner filed its reply inter alia producing documents. The authority, without providing opportunity of hearing, has passed the order dated 30.04.2024
inter alia on the ground that the explanation furnished was not found satisfactory being not supported with the documents and there being no connection in the documents produced and the discrepancies pointed out in the notice.
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 was purportedly not found satisfactory, it was incumbent on the authority to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and on failure of providing opportunity of hearing, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure-5) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-5, Ghaziabad, who is directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PUNEET SRIVASTAVA 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.