M/S Prakash Movers And Forwarding Agency Thru. Proprietor Rajesh Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prakash Movers and Forwarding Agency, challenged two orders. The first order, dated 24.08.2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 03.03.2025, dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner's primary contention was that the order under Section 73 was passed without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The respondent State, through its Standing Counsel, stated that the notice sent to the petitioner fixed the hearing date prior to the deadline for submitting a reply.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 24.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act was in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, as it was passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. Consequently, both the order dated 24.08.2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 03.03.2025, which dismissed the appeal as time-barred, were quashed. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 24.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 73 was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. They relied on the judgment in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) which dealt with a similar issue. Respondent's Argument: The respondent State, based on instructions, contended that the notice issued to the petitioner scheduled the hearing date before the date for submitting the reply, implying a procedural irregularity in the notice itself, but did not directly counter the violation of hearing opportunity argument beyond this.