M/S Raj Cold Drink Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration . Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Raj Cold Drink, represented by its Proprietor Santosh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted. While the order on record indicated an opportunity for written submission, the petitioner argued that a personal hearing was mandatory. The impugned order was passed by the assessing authority. The dispute pertains to the procedural fairness in the passing of the order.
Held
The Court held that it is mandatory to grant a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court noted that the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 did not fix a specific date for hearing, which is evident from the order itself. Adopting the reasoning from the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals (supra), the Court found that the petitioner was not afforded the mandatory personal hearing. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 was found unsustainable and was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-grant of a personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a personal hearing was mandatory as per Section 75(4) of the GST Act and that the impugned order was passed without affording this opportunity. The petitioner relied on the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Ors (Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021) decided on 04.03.2022. Respondent's contention: The State, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16135 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 201 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Raj Cold Drink Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration . Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act.
Challenging the order dated 31.08.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no hearing was accorded. The order on record indicates that the petitioner was given an opportunity, however, he gave a written submission and never insisted for personal hearing.
The said issue with regard to personal hearing was considered in the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Ors (Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021) decided on 04.03.2022. 5. Considering the fact that it is mandatory to grant personal hearing under Section 75(4) of GST Act and no specific date for hearing was fixed as is evident from the impugned order, and adopting the reasoning as contained in the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals (supra), present petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 31.08.2024 cannot be sustained and is quashed.
Matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 nishant NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.