M/S Mount Victoria Granites vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mount Victoria Granites, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also brought to the Court's attention a previous petition, Writ Tax No. 1817 of 2025, filed for a different period, which was allowed by the Court for similar reasons. The counsel for the respondents did not dispute these submissions.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by respondent no. 2, was in violation of the principles of natural justice. This conclusion was based on the reasoning adopted in a previous, similar case (Writ Tax No. 1817 of 2025). In that prior case, the Court had found that the show cause notice had a defective hearing date, and crucially, after the petitioner filed their reply, the authority failed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act, despite a significant delay in passing the order. Consequently, the impugned order could not be sustained. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the authority to fix a fresh date for personal hearing, provide an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They relied on the Court's decision in Writ Tax No. 1817 of 2025, which dealt with a similar situation and found a violation of natural justice due to an improperly fixed hearing date and the absence of a personal hearing after the reply was filed. Respondent's Contention: The counsel for the respondents did not dispute the submissions made by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74371-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1966 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Mount Victoria Granites Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 73(9) of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') for the financial year 2019-20. 2. Submissions have been made that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Further submissions have been made that in another petition filed by the petitioner pertaining to different assessment period, for similar reasons, Writ Tax No. 1817 of 2025 has been allowed by the Court on 30.04.2025. 4. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the submissions made.
In Writ Tax No. 1817 of 2025 this Court, inter alia, came to the following conclusion:- "
We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the show cause notice would reveal that date for personal hearing has been fixed without application of mind and/or on account of typographical error wherein the Republic Day has been fixed as the date of hearing and that also prior to the last date of filing of reply. Once, the reply was filed by the petitioner and the authority has taken three months in passing the order impugned, it was incumbent in terms of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which apparently, has not been granted. Therefore, the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority, who will fix a date for providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, the authority would pass appropriate order in accordance with law."
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority, who will fix a date for providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, the authority would pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Sandeep/AKShukla (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.