M/S Manish Indane Gramin Vitran Thru. Proprietor Amrawati vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manish Indane Gramin Vitran, challenged an order dated 29.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner's primary contention was that the show-cause notice issued by the respondent authorities provided the same date for the submission of the reply and the date of the hearing. This, the petitioner argued, was contrary to departmental circulars. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the same High Court in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) dated 04.03.2024, which dealt with a similar procedural lacuna. The Court noted the existence of this lacuna in the present case.

Held

The Court held that the procedural lacuna identified in the show-cause notice, where the date for reply submission and the date of hearing were the same, was contrary to departmental circulars and prejudiced the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. The Court found this issue to be identical to the one decided in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.04.2024. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing, as prescribed under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The ratio decidendi is that a show-cause notice providing identical dates for reply submission and hearing is procedurally flawed and violates natural justice, necessitating a remand for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show-cause notice, which stipulated the same date for the submission of the reply and the date of hearing, is contrary to departmental circulars and violates principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the subsequent order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the simultaneous dates for reply submission and hearing in the show-cause notice were in violation of departmental circulars. They contended that this procedural flaw prejudiced their right to adequately prepare and present their defense. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. to support their claim that such a procedural lapse warrants interference. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the procedural defect. The judgment does not record any counter-arguments from the respondent.