M/S Santosh Traders Thru. Proprietor Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax Registration Govt. Of U.P. Lko. U.P. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Santosh Traders, through its Proprietor Pankaj Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 06.08.2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 17.03.2025, dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner's primary contention was that the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was passed without granting a mandatory opportunity of hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent, State of U.P., through its counsel, acknowledged that no date for hearing was fixed in the second reminder notice. The impugned orders themselves did not record whether an opportunity of hearing was provided.

Held

The Court held that both impugned orders, dated 06.08.2024 and 17.03.2025, were unsustainable. The primary reasoning was based on the violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates providing an opportunity of hearing before passing an order. The Court noted that the order under Section 73 did not record whether such an opportunity was granted, and the respondent's counsel confirmed that no hearing date was fixed in the reminder notice. This procedural lapse was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the orders were quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned or considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 06.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the order dated 17.03.2025, dismissing the appeal on limitation, is sustainable in light of the alleged procedural irregularity in the preceding order? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act was illegal and unsustainable because no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This violation, according to the petitioner, also renders the subsequent appellate order, which was based on limitation, invalid. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that no date for hearing was fixed in the second reminder notice. The respondent did not present any arguments beyond this factual submission.