M/S Chhotey Lal Kirana Store Thru. Proprietor Chhote Lal Jaiswal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Goods And Service Tax Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chhotey Lal Kirana Store, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed by the respondent State of U.P. The petitioner's primary contention was that the date of the notice and the date of the personal hearing were the same, which they asserted was impermissible. The assessment order was passed on August 5, 2024. The notice under Section 73(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 142(1), was dated May 23, 2024. The reply submission deadline and the personal hearing date were both mentioned as June 22, 2024. A subsequent notice dated July 1, 2024, under Section 73(9) was also issued, but the petitioner claimed not to have availed it.

Held

The Court held that there is no legal provision or established principle that prohibits the date of a notice and the date of a personal hearing from being the same. The Court found the petitioner's assertion that this was factually incorrect in their case. The notice dated May 23, 2024, had a reply submission deadline and personal hearing date of June 22, 2024. The Court also noted a second show cause notice dated July 1, 2024, which the petitioner also did not avail. The Court found no reason to interfere with the assessment order. The ratio decidendi is that statutory compliance regarding notice and hearing dates is satisfied as long as the opportunity to be heard is provided, and there is no inherent illegality in the notice and hearing dates coinciding, provided sufficient time is implicitly or explicitly granted. The writ petition was dismissed, but without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file an appeal if otherwise permissible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the date of issuance of a notice under Section 73(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 142(1), and the date fixed for personal hearing can be the same, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the date for submitting a reply and the date for personal hearing cannot be the same, implying a lack of adequate opportunity to respond. They relied on the principle that a reasonable period must be given between notice and hearing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning suggests the respondent implicitly argued that there is no legal bar to the notice date and hearing date being the same, and that the petitioner had opportunities, including a second show cause notice, which were not availed.