Rajkaran Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rajkaran Singh, challenged an order dated 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and a subsequent order dated 24.02.2025 that dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's primary contention was that the order under Section 73 was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing, which he argued contravened Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The State, through learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the date for submitting a reply (28.06.2024) was fixed after the date of personal hearing (14.06.2024), indicating a procedural irregularity in the notice issued.
Held
The Court held that the notice issued for the proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act was not a sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The fact that the date for submitting a reply (28.06.2024) was fixed after the date of personal hearing (14.06.2024) demonstrated a clear procedural flaw. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 28.08.2024 and 24.02.2025 were found to be contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that a fair opportunity of hearing is a fundamental principle of natural justice, and its absence vitiates the proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4), is unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing. 2. Whether the subsequent order dated 24.02.2025, dismissing the appeal as time-barred, is sustainable in light of the alleged procedural infirmity in the initial order. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 73 was passed without granting a proper opportunity of hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Revenue's Contention: The State contended that the notice issued was deficient as the date fixed for reply submission (28.06.2024) was after the date fixed for personal hearing (14.06.2024), rendering the notice insufficient compliance with Section 75(4).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17479 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 252 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajkaran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 24.02.2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation.
The neat contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was accorded while passing the order under Section 73 of GST Act which is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
Learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions which are taken on record, states that the date by which the reply was submitted was fixed as 28.06.2024 whereas the date of personal hearing was fixed on 14.06.2024 which is prior in point of time.
The said notice cannot be termed as sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 75(4) of GST Act.
Finding the impugned orders dated 28.08.2024 & 24.02.2025 to be contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be sustained and are quashed.
Present petition is accordingly allowed.
Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 nishant NISHANT MOHAN 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.