M/S Adinath Enterprises,A Proprietorship Concern Of Ms. Roli Jain And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Adinath Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.12.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act by the respondent authority. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice issued for the proceedings provided the same date for hearing and filing of the reply, which is contrary to legal procedure. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., dated 04.03.2024, which dealt with a similar procedural irregularity. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 03.12.2024, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, could not be sustained. The reasoning was based on the finding that the notice issued to the petitioner did not provide a proper opportunity for hearing and filing a reply, as the date for both was the same. This procedural defect was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court followed its previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 03.12.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is sustainable in law, given that the notice provided the same date for hearing and filing of reply? The petitioner argued that the notice was procedurally flawed as it did not grant adequate opportunity for hearing and filing a reply, citing the judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. The petitioner contended that this violated principles of natural justice. The revenue did not present any arguments in response to this contention.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19886 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 309 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Adinath Enterprises,A Proprietorship Concern Of Ms. Roli Jain And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Order Date :- 9.4.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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.