M/S Aggarwal Foundry Thru. Its Partner And Authorised Signatory Shri. Anurag Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. G.S.T. Deptt. Lko. U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aggarwal Foundry, through its partner Anurag Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. This order was followed by another order dated 12.03.2025, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being time-barred. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the initial order dated 16.04.2024 was passed. The counsel for the State affirmed this fact, acknowledging that the scheduled hearing date was earlier than the date the petitioner submitted their reply. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the passing of an order under Section 73 and a subsequent dismissal of an appeal.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 16.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was indeed passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. This was based on the concession made by the State's counsel, who admitted that the hearing date was fixed before the petitioner had submitted their reply. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court also held that the subsequent order dated 12.03.2025, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, was unsustainable as it was a consequence of the flawed initial order. The Court quashed both the order dated 16.04.2024 and the order dated 12.03.2025. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, especially when conceded by the revenue, violates natural justice and renders the order, and any subsequent consequential orders, invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 16.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principle of natural justice by not affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the subsequent order dated 12.03.2025, dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, is sustainable in light of the alleged procedural infirmity in the preceding order? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order dated 16.04.2024 was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as no proper opportunity of hearing was granted. This procedural defect vitiates the subsequent order. Respondent's Contention: The State conceded that the date fixed for hearing was prior to the date of submission of the petitioner's reply, thereby affirming the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of adequate opportunity of hearing.