Prashant Bansal, Proprietor vs. State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary (Tax And Instituttional Registration) And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice was not substantiated. Upon reviewing the record, including the order sheet of the Assessing Authority, the Court found that ample opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the matter on this ground. However, the Court granted the petitioner a concession to file an appeal before the concerned appellate authority within one month from the date of the order, directing that such an appeal be entertained by the appellate authority, notwithstanding the period of limitation, provided there were no other legal impediments. The Court explicitly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the case, leaving them to be adjudicated by the appellate authority. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Prashant Bansal, Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.06.2020, issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as he was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash this order. The court examined the record, including the order sheet of the Assessing Authority, which indicated that ample opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner before the order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.06.2020, passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to an alleged lack of opportunity of hearing for the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Assessing Authority did not provide him with the opportunity of hearing as prayed for. The revenue, through the learned Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record arguments on this point in the judgment, but the court's perusal of the record indicated that ample opportunity of hearing was indeed given.