M/S Paris Garments Caters And General Order Supplier,Balrampur Thru. Prop. Om Prakash Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Paris Garments Caters And General Order Supplier, through its proprietor Om Prakash Tiwari, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.11.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated 10.03.2025, which dismissed their appeal on the grounds of delay. The petitioner's primary contention was that no hearing was granted to them before the order under Section 74 was passed. The Standing Counsel for the respondent (State of U.P.) acknowledged that while the petitioner was intimated a date and filed submissions, no fresh hearing date was fixed thereafter. The impugned order itself did not indicate that a personal hearing was provided.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 05.11.2024, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, was contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the Act and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The Court found that the procedural lapse rendered the order unsustainable. Consequently, the order dated 05.11.2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 10.03.2025 (which dismissed the appeal on delay, implicitly stemming from the initial flawed order) were quashed. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 05.11.2024, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's assertion that no personal hearing was afforded, thereby potentially violating Section 75(4) of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 74 of the GST Act was passed without granting them a proper hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. They contended that this procedural lapse violates their right to natural justice and the specific provisions of the GST Act. They also argued that the subsequent dismissal of their appeal on grounds of delay was also flawed, implicitly due to the initial lack of a proper order. Respondent's Argument: The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, conceded that while the petitioner was initially intimated a date and submitted their response, no fresh date for a personal hearing was subsequently fixed. They did not dispute the petitioner's claim that no further hearing was provided and acknowledged that the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of a personal hearing.