M/S Sriram Traders Thru. Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Gupta And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sriram Traders, through its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Gupta and another, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.02.2023 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. The respondent, State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, State Tax, Lucknow, and another, through learned Standing Counsel, stated that no date for hearing was fixed. The petition concerns the tax period leading to the order dated 17.02.2023. The authority that passed the order is not explicitly named but is implied to be a GST authority acting under Section 74.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 17.02.2023, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, could not be sustained. This decision was based on the finding that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, which constitutes a violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s Santosyh Traders through Proprietor Santosh Kumar Gonda vs State of U.P. and others: 2023:AHC-LKO:57518, which established that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing renders an order unsustainable. Consequently, the order dated 17.02.2023 was quashed. The matter was remanded to the respondent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 17.02.2023 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided, which is a fundamental procedural requirement. The revenue, through learned Standing Counsel, conceded that no date for hearing was fixed. The court considered the precedent set in M/s Santosyh Traders through Proprietor Santosh Kumar Gonda vs State of U.P. and others: 2023:AHC-LKO:57518, which dealt with a similar issue of non-compliance with the opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17934 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 270 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Sriram Traders Thru. Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Savitra Vardhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 17.02.2023 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act.
The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel based upon instructions states that no date for hearing was fixed.
Considering the said submission and finding that the said issue has already been decided in the case of M/s Santosyh U.P. and others: 2023:AHC-LKO:57518, the order impugned dated 17.02.2023 cannot be sustained as being violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded to the respondent authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA 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.