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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rameshwar Das Ram Niwas, through its authorized signatory, challenged two orders. The first order, dated 01.08.2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 25.02.2025, 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 did not dispute this fact, and the impugned order itself did not indicate that any hearing was provided to the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 01.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the subsequent order dated 25.02.2025, 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 amounted to 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 provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a hearing, where such hearing is mandated by statute or principles of natural justice, is void and liable to be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 01.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby contravening 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 was passed without granting them a hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. They contended that this procedural lapse violates Section 75(4) of the GST Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, rendering the order unsustainable. 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 counter-arguments regarding the petitioner's claim of no hearing.