M/S Ani Technologies PVT. LTD. Thru. Authorised Signatory Soumya M vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Institutional Finance And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the denial of a personal hearing could not be sustained. The impugned order clearly indicated that an opportunity for personal hearing was provided, and a date was fixed for April 15, 2024. The petitioner's failure to appear on the scheduled date meant they did not avail the opportunity. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Ram Phal, which states that if an opportunity is provided and not availed by the party, the argument of denial of opportunity cannot be accepted. The Court was not satisfied with the petitioner's submissions, particularly in light of the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the Office Memo of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., which was referred to in a previous coordinate bench's order. The Court found no reason to doubt the respondent's assertion that an opportunity was granted. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 26, 2024, passed by respondent no. 3. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying them a personal hearing. The petitioner relied on several High Court judgments supporting the requirement of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act. The respondent State argued that the petitioner was indeed granted an opportunity for a personal hearing, with a date fixed for April 15, 2024, but the petitioner failed to appear. The impugned order itself indicated that an opportunity was provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 26, 2024, passed by respondent no. 3, was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner a personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without granting a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, citing various High Court precedents including S.S. Suppliers Vs. State of U.P., M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P., Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, and Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. They also referred to observations in Mahaveer Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax regarding procedural irregularities in fixing hearing dates. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent State contended that the petitioner was granted an opportunity for a personal hearing, and a date was fixed for April 15, 2024. However, the petitioner did not appear on the scheduled date, as evidenced by the impugned order. The State relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Ram Phal.