M/S Bcs Consulting Private Limited Thru. Director Mr. Abhishek Bhartiya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance,Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bcs Consulting Private Limited, has challenged two orders: an order dated 02.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and an order dated 19.02.2025 which dismissed their appeal. The petitioner's primary contention is that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing before the initial order under Section 73 was passed. The respondent, State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary and other authorities, stated that the hearing date was fixed prior to the filing of the petitioner's reply. The Court noted that this issue was previously considered in a similar case, Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.).

Held

The Court held that the order dated 02.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing. Following its own judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., the Court found that the impugned order failed to provide a hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, both the order dated 02.08.2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 19.02.2025 were quashed. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 02.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was passed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They relied on the precedent set in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State, based on instructions, stated that the date of hearing was fixed prior to the date of filing of the petitioner's reply. The judgment does not record any further arguments or reliance on specific provisions or precedents by the respondent.