M/S Trust Pharmacy,Lucknow Thru. Authorised Signatory Rajlaxmi Bhandari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Trust Pharmacy, Lucknow, challenged an order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the respondent (opposite party no.2) under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated 27.03.2025, which dismissed their appeal as being beyond the limitation period. The petitioner's primary contention was that proper notice for hearing was not served, leading to the order under Section 73 being passed without affording an opportunity to be heard. They argued that the notice was uploaded in an 'additional tab,' which they considered insufficient compliance. The respondent's counsel did not dispute this proposition.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 12.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the subsequent appellate order dated 27.03.2025 were liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that proper notice of hearing was not served, and the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court found that uploading the notice in an 'additional tab' was not sufficient compliance. Following the precedent set by the Division Bench in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited vs State of U.P. and others, the Court quashed both impugned orders. The ratio decidendi is that failure to provide proper notice and an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and renders consequential orders invalid. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 12.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? 2. Whether the appellate order dated 27.03.2025, dismissing the appeal as time-barred, is sustainable in light of the alleged lack of proper notice in the original proceedings? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice for hearing was not properly served, and the order under Section 73 was passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing. They contended that uploading the notice in an 'additional tab' did not constitute sufficient compliance. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited vs State of U.P. and others: 2024:AHC:116559-DB. Respondent's Contentions: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the proposition advanced by the petitioner.