M/S Ramesh Traders Shahzadpur,Ambedkar Nagar Thru. Its Proprietor vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance),Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ramesh Traders Shahzadpur, Ambedkar Nagar, through its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.06.2022 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated 25.01.2025, which dismissed their appeal as being beyond the limitation period. The primary contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the initial order under Section 74 was passed. The learned Standing Counsel, representing the respondent State, did not deny this assertion and acknowledged that no hearing date was fixed.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 20.06.2022 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, and consequently the order dated 25.01.2025 dismissing the appeal, could not be sustained. The Court found that the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act had not been followed, as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the initial order was passed. The reasoning was that the failure to provide a hearing violates statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed under the GST Act without granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard, where such opportunity is mandated by law, is liable to be quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 20.06.2022 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is sustainable in law, considering the alleged absence of an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner? (Question of law, turning on Section 74 and Section 75(4) of the GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is bad in law as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to its passing, thus violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel, based on instructions, did not deny the petitioner's claim that no opportunity of hearing was granted and no date for hearing was fixed.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17880 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 272 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ramesh Traders Shahzadpur,Ambedkar Nagar Thru. Its Proprietor Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance),Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Tripathi 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 the order dated 20.06.2022 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 25.01.2025 whereby, the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the order under Section 74 of the GST Act.
Learned Standing Counsel based upon instructions does not deny that no opportunity of hearing was granted and no date for hearing was also fixed.
In view of the said submission and finding that prima facie the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act has not been followed, the orders impugned cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.
The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording 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.