M/S Vijay Shree Enterprises Thru. Authorised Signatory Prayag Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vijay Shree Enterprises, challenged an order dated 29.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and a subsequent appellate order dated 27.03.2025 that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the order under Section 73 was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing. The respondent, State of U.P., through the Standing Counsel, stated that the petitioner had indicated 'No' to the option of personal hearing, leading to the order being passed without it. The petitioner argued that despite not explicitly requesting a personal hearing, the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act requires an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 29.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and the subsequent appellate order dated 27.03.2025 are liable to be quashed. The Court found that the respondent's contention that no hearing was granted because the petitioner marked 'No' to the personal hearing option was contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This section requires the grant of a personal hearing prior to passing any adverse order, irrespective of whether a specific request for personal hearing was made. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021 (Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax), which unequivocally held that the grant of an opportunity of hearing is mandatory. Consequently, both impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 29.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing, as stipulated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act, even if the petitioner did not explicitly request a personal hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 73 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. They relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021 (Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax) decided on 04.03.2022, which held that a personal hearing must be granted even without a specific request. Respondent's arguments: The Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. argued that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded because the petitioner had selected 'No' in response to the question regarding the requirement of a personal hearing. Therefore, the order was passed in accordance with the petitioner's indication.