Kps Iron And Alloys Company Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, KPS Iron and Alloys Company Private Limited, is challenging an order dated 11.09.2024 passed by respondent no.3 under Section 74(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, raising a demand of Rs. 12,83,13,918/- for the tax period July 2017 - March 2018. Previously, an order dated 29.03.2023 for Rs. 7,91,75,326.56 was set aside by the High Court on 11.10.2023 due to lack of personal hearing, directing the petitioner to file a reply and appear on 12.11.2023. Subsequently, a fresh show cause notice was issued on 27.07.2024, fixing personal hearing for 28.08.2024. The petitioner uploaded a reply on 29.07.2024, stating hard copies were already submitted. The impugned order was passed on 11.09.2024.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice was not supported by material evidence. The Court found that the petitioner's online reply filed on 29.07.2024 indicated that documents had already been submitted, referring to those produced on 26.10.2023. Therefore, the claim of personal appearance on 28.08.2024 for filing hard copies of documents was not accepted. The Court concluded that since the petitioner chose not to appear on 28.08.2024, despite the opportunity provided, the passing of the order by the authority after reviewing the submitted response and documents could not be faulted. The Court also noted the substance in the respondents' submission regarding the efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act. Consequently, the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice were not accepted, and the writ petition was found to have no substance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 11.09.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the Act, by not affording the petitioner a personal hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that despite appearing on 28.08.2024 and submitting a written clarification with documents, no hearing took place, and no further notice was issued before the impugned order was passed. They argued that the previous order was also set aside for violating natural justice, and the same violation occurred again. They relied on the observation in the impugned order mentioning a written clarification filed by their counsel. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that a technical mistake on the portal led to a re-issued online show cause notice. They stated that although the reply was uploaded, no one appeared on the date of personal hearing (28.08.2024), nor was any prayer made for adjournment. Therefore, the order was passed based on the documents previously produced. They also argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which was not availed.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 74(9), Section 75(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order.
It appears that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared
before the respondent no.3 and filed its reply (hard copy) along with documents namely ledger account, invoices, bilty, kanta parchi, e-way bill and bank statements. Whereafter, it appears that a formal notice under Section 74 dated 27.07.2024 was issued to the petitioner requiring it to file reply by 27.08.2024 and date of personal hearing was fixed as 28.08.2024. 4. The reply was uploaded by the petitioner on 29.07.2024 on the portal and it was indicated 'that all invoice, e-way bill, bilty, kanta parchi, bank statements, ledger and proof of active dealer purchaser all documents submit hard copy already submitted before DC State Tax Sikandrabad'. Whereafter on 11.09.2024, the order impugned under Section 74(9) of the Act has been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that passing of the order dated 11.09.2024 is in violation of principles of natural justice as provided under provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act. Submissions have been made that on earlier occasion also, the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice which was set aside, however, again the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing.
Submissions have been made that on 28.08.2024, the date fixed for hearing, the Advocate of the petitioner appeared and submitted the hard copy of reply or written submissions along with entire supporting documents, however, after receiving the documents, no hearing took place and whereafter no further notice for hearing was issued to the petitioner and the order dated 11.09.2024 was passed, which is ex facie in violation of principles of natural justice.
Further submissions have been made that the order impugned
notices that counsel of the petitioner filed a 16 page written clarification along with the documents, however, the same nowhere indicates that hearing was afforded to the counsel, which clearly proves that no opportunity of hearing was provided and, therefore, the order impugned dated 11.09.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted with reference to the instructions that on account of a technical mistake on the Portal, after the requisite was rectified, the petitioner was again issued the online show cause notice dated 27.07.2024 and time was granted to file reply by 27.08.2024 and personal hearing was fixed on 28.08.2024 at 11.00 a.m. Though the reply was uploaded on the GST Portal on 29.07.2024, however, on the date of personal hearing i.e. 28.08.2024, none appeared and no prayer was made for fixing some other date and, therefore, based on the documents which were produced by the petitioner on 26.10.2023 pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the order impugned was passed which does not call for any interference.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioner had efficacious alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which has not been availed for no valid reason and therefore, on that count also the petition deserves dismissal.
We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The only plea which has been raised by the petitioner in the petition pertains to violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that after filing of the reply dated 29.07.2024 on the GST
Portal, though the petitioner had appeared on 28.08.2024, he was not afforded any personal hearing and though the petitioner awaited some date being fixed for personal hearing, none was communicated and the order impugned dated 11.09.2024 without affording any opportunity has been passed.
For the purpose of claiming the appearance on the date fixed for hearing i.e. 28.08.2024, reliance has been placed on the observations made by the Assessing Authority that a 16 page written explanation, party-wise ledger tax invoice, bilty, kanta parchi and copies of bank statements were manually produced.
The plea raised based on the said observations, is not supported by any material inasmuch as it is the specific case of the petitioner that after the matter was remanded by this Court on the earlier occasion, he had filed the reply along with all the requisite documents reference whereof has been made in the order impugned.
In the online reply filed on 29.07.2024 pursuant to the re- issued notice under Section 74 of the Act, it was specifically indicated 'that all invoice, e-way bill, bilty, kanta parchi, bank statements, ledger and proof of active dealer purchaser all documents submit hard copy already submitted before DC State Tax Sikandrabad'. The very fact that in the reply uploaded on 29.07.2024, indication was made that documents have already been submitted, the same essentially refer to the documents admittedly produced by the petitioner on 26.10.2023 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and apparently on 28.08.2024, the plea raised that personal appearance was made on behalf of the petitioner for filing the hard copy of the documents, cannot be accepted. Once the petitioner chose not to appear on 28.08.2024
despite opportunity having been provided, the passing of the order by the competent authority after going through the response filed along with documents, cannot be faulted.
There is also substance in the submissions made by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act, however, except for indicating in Para 43 of the writ petition that petitioner is aware of availability of alternative remedy of filing the appeal but since the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, petition under Article 226 was being filed, nothing else has been indicated. However, as it has been found by this Court based on the material available on record, that no appearance was made by the petitioner on 28.08.2024, the date fixed for personal hearing, the allegations regarding violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 AHA (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI 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.