M/S V.K. Construction, Majnawana Sohawal Faizabad Thru. Proprietor Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s V.K. Construction, through its proprietor Vinod Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted. Specifically, the notice issued indicated the same date for the submission of the reply and the date of hearing. This procedural defect was the central point of contention. The State of U.P. and two other respondents were the opposing parties. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 was violative of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of opportunity of hearing, where the notice prescribed the same date for reply submission and hearing, was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company. Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained. The reasoning was based on the principle that a fair hearing is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, and the procedure followed in issuing the notice and order denied this right to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a notice prescribing the same date for reply and hearing is procedurally flawed and vitiates the subsequent order. The Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 22.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an adequate opportunity of hearing? The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 73 of the GST Act was defective as it provided the same date for the submission of the reply and the date of hearing. This, according to the petitioner, denied them a fair opportunity to present their case. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another: Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, decided on 04.03.2024, which dealt with a similar issue. The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's submission regarding the lack of opportunity of hearing.