M/S Sekh Auto Sales And Service, Faizabad Thru. Proprietor Munna Sheikh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration, Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sekh Auto Sales And Service, through its Proprietor Munna Sheikh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The respondent, State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Tax and Registration, and two others, stated through the learned Standing Counsel that no specific date for hearing was fixed, and the date fixed was for filing objections and hearing. The respondent acknowledged that this manner of fixing the date was against a departmental circular and a previous judgment of this Court.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was liable to be quashed. The Court found that the order was passed without providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. The Court noted that the respondent's submission that the date fixed was for both filing objections and hearing, and that this was contrary to departmental circulars and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another, supported the petitioner's claim. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for having been passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, as no proper opportunity for hearing was provided. The petitioner relied on the fact that the impugned order itself indicated a lack of hearing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the learned Standing Counsel, stated that while a date was fixed, it was for filing objections and hearing simultaneously. The respondent conceded that this procedure was contrary to departmental circulars and a judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another.