M/S Shree Shyamji Concrete Udyog vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Shyamji Concrete Udyog, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte demand order dated 23.04.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the impugned order failed to comply with Section 75(6) of the Act, which mandates that the proper officer must set out the relevant facts and the basis of their decision in the order. The respondent's counsel did not dispute that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Court in a similar case. The procedural history involves the issuance of the ex parte demand order without providing adequate reasons or basis for the decision.

Held

The Court held that the ex parte demand order dated 23.04.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly, is unsustainable. The Court found that the order, similar to the one in the cited case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section requires the proper officer to set out the relevant facts and the basis of their decision in the order. The impugned order merely incorporated the indication made in the show cause notice by reference, without providing any independent reasoning or factual basis for its decision. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the ex parte order. The matter was remanded back to the respondent No.2, who was directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act within four weeks. Thereafter, after providing an opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with the law was to be passed. The ratio decidendi is that an ex parte order under Section 73 of the GST Act must be self-contained and provide the relevant facts and basis for the decision, even if no response is filed to the show cause notice, to comply with Section 75(6).

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte demand order dated 23.04.2024, issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable because it does not fulfill the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act. They relied on the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. (Writ Tax No.606 of 2025) to support their claim that the order lacks the necessary factual basis and reasoning. Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the impugned order but conceded that the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra).