M/S Shekh Travels Thru.Proprietor Mainuddeen vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance ) Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shekh Travels, challenged an assessment order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. They also challenged an order dated 18.03.2025, which dismissed their appeal as being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner's primary contention was that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing before the assessment order was passed. The Standing Counsel for the respondent, State of U.P., stated that no date for hearing was fixed. The impugned orders were passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority, respectively.
Held
The Court held that the assessment order dated 31.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was violative of the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing to be provided. The Court reasoned that the absence of a hearing before passing the assessment order contravened the principles of natural justice. Consequently, both the assessment order dated 31.08.2024 and the appellate order dated 18.03.2025 (which dismissed the appeal as time-barred) were quashed. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act, is unsustainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 31.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to the passing of the assessment order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Respondent's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that no date for hearing was fixed, implicitly acknowledging the absence of a hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
said order.
The Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions states that no date for hearing was fixed.
Considering the submissions made by the petitioner and the instructions of the Standing Counsel, the order impugned under section 73 of the Act is violative of the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Thus, on that limited ground, both the orders dated 31.08.2024 and 18.03.2025 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The writ petition stands allowed with the said observations. 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.