M/S Shekh Travels Thru.Proprietor,Mainuddeen vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance ) Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shekh Travels, challenged an assessment order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and a subsequent appellate order dated 17.03.2025 that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's primary contention was that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the assessment order was passed. The Standing Counsel, representing the respondent State of U.P., confirmed that no hearing date was fixed. The dispute concerns the procedural fairness in the assessment process.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated 22.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act because no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the mandate of Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of being heard to be provided before passing an order, and this was not done. Consequently, the appellate order dated 17.03.2025, which dismissed the appeal as time-barred, was also quashed as it was based on the flawed assessment order. The Court found that the procedural defect in the assessment stage vitiated the subsequent appellate order. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory requirement for an opportunity of hearing must be strictly adhered to; its violation renders the consequential order unsustainable. The Court quashed both impugned orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 22.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the GST Act, by failing to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? 2. Whether the appellate order dated 17.03.2025, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, is sustainable in light of the alleged procedural infirmity in the original assessment order? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing them with a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This procedural lapse, they contended, rendered the assessment order invalid. Respondent's Argument: The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that no date for hearing was fixed, implicitly acknowledging the petitioner's submission regarding the lack of a hearing.