M/S Adinath Enterprises,A Proprietorship Concern Of Ms.Roli Jain And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And Another

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 authorities. The petitioner's primary contention was that no separate date of hearing was fixed, and no hearing was granted to them before the impugned order was passed. The respondent, State of U.P., through its Principal Secretary, State Tax, and another, stated that the same date was fixed for filing a reply and for hearing. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) dated 04.03.2024.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 was in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Following the precedent set in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., the Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The reasoning was that the fixing of the same date for filing a reply and for hearing, without a separate notice for hearing, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by not providing a separate date of hearing and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? (Question of law, turning on Section 75(4) of the GST Act). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, as no separate date of hearing was fixed and no hearing was accorded to them prior to the passing of the order. They relied on the judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. Respondent's argument: The Standing Counsel for the State, based on instructions, stated that the same date was fixed for filing the reply as well as for hearing.