Max Enterprises,Amethi Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Dilip Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance,Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Max Enterprises, through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Dilip Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act, was provided before the order was issued. The respondent, State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, and two others, through the learned Standing Counsel, stated that no date for hearing was fixed. The impugned order was passed by an unspecified authority under Section 73 of the GST Act.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the Court found that the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing to be granted, was not followed. The respondent's counsel confirmed that no date for hearing was fixed. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, with a specific direction to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 18.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates providing an opportunity of hearing before passing an order. The petitioner asserted that no such opportunity was granted. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the learned Standing Counsel, conceded that no date for hearing was fixed by the authority passing the impugned order.