M/S Rameshwar Das Ram Niwas,Lko. Thru. Authorised Signatory Umakant Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rameshwar Das Ram Niwas, through its authorized signatory, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated April 9, 2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated February 25, 2025, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the first order as being time-barred. The petitioner's primary contention was that no hearing was granted before the order under Section 73 was passed. The Standing Counsel for the respondent-State did not dispute this fact, and the impugned order itself did not indicate any hearing was provided.

Held

The Court held that the order dated April 9, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the subsequent order dated February 25, 2025, which dismissed the appeal as time-barred, were unsustainable. The Court found that the failure to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order under Section 73 was a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This violation also constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed. The Court remanded the matter back to the authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner is given an adequate opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was allowed with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated April 9, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, as guaranteed under Section 75(4) of the GST Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act and a fundamental aspect of natural justice, also protected by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent's Argument: The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, did not deny the petitioner's assertion that no hearing date was fixed. The respondent did not present any argument to counter the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of a hearing.