M/S Maa Savitri Medical Store Thru. Proprietor Amresh Chandra Srivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Savitri Medical Store, through its Proprietor Amresh Chandra Srivastava, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.08.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act by the respondent State of U.P. The petitioner's primary contention was that no opportunity of hearing was provided, as the date mentioned in the show cause notice for hearing and reply submission was the same. The petitioner also referred to a previous judgment by the same High Court in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) which dealt with a similar issue after considering a circular issued by the respondents.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 was violative of the principles of natural justice. Following its own previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., the Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show cause notice stipulated the same date for submitting a reply and for the hearing, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that a show cause notice must provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case, which includes adequate time for preparing and submitting a reply and for attending a hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after granting the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is violative of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a proper opportunity of hearing for the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued in a manner that the date for submitting a reply and the date for the hearing were identical, effectively denying them a meaningful opportunity to present their case. They relied on the judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024) which addressed similar procedural infirmities after considering relevant circulars issued by the respondents. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent State of U.P.