M/S K.D.Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that there was an infraction of the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel could not dispute that the petitioner had a right to a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act and that no date for personal hearing was notified after the notice dated 21.03.2023, before the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with the law, which would include affording the petitioner a proper personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that failure to provide a mandatory personal hearing before passing an assessment order vitiates the order and violates principles of natural justice.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s K.D. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Sector-10, Meerut. This order assessed the petitioner to GST under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's primary contention was that it was denied a personal hearing, a right guaranteed under Section 45(4) of the Act. The petitioner highlighted that while an initial notice on 07.10.2022 fixed 21.10.2022 for personal hearing, no order was passed then. A subsequent notice on 21.03.2023, after a six-month lapse, provided a timeframe for reply but did not notify a date for personal hearing. The impugned order was ultimately passed on 09.04.2023 without a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 19.04.2023, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Sector-10, Meerut, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of affording a personal hearing to the petitioner under Section 45(4) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the statutory provision Section 45(4) of the Act mandates a personal hearing, which was not provided. They pointed to the procedural history where dates for personal hearing were either not fixed or followed up with an order, leading to the final order being passed without fulfilling this procedural safeguard. This, they contended, violates principles of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the revenue conceded that the petitioner has a right to personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act and could not dispute that a personal hearing was not notified after the notice dated 21.03.2023, prior to the passing of the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 45(4), Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220857-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1313 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S K.D.Enterprises Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by Commercial Tax Officer State Tax Sector- 10, Meerut (Respondent No. 2) assessing the petitioner to GST under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. The primary challenge is on the ground that although in terms of Section 45(4) of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to personal hearing but the same was not afforded to it before passing the impugned order. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that initially when notice was issued on 07.10.2022, the Assessing Officer fixed 21.10.2022 as date for personal hearing. However, on that date, no order was passed. After expiry of six months i.e. on 21.03.2023 the Assessing Officer issued another notice fixing time frame for submitting reply. However, in the said notice, no date for personal hearing was notifie
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.