M/S Mishra Enterprises Thru. Partner Anurag Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mishra Enterprises, through its partner Anurag Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting a mandatory opportunity of hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent, State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Tax and Registration, and two others, was represented by the learned Standing Counsel. The Standing Counsel stated that no date for hearing was fixed in the notice sent to the petitioner. The impugned order did not reflect any hearing having taken place.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 22.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The primary reason for this decision was the violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before passing an order. The Court noted that the impugned order did not reflect any hearing having been granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court found that this procedural lapse also constituted a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of the mandatory requirement of an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is unsustainable because no opportunity of hearing was provided prior to its issuance, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner asserted that this procedural lapse also violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State, based on instructions, stated that no date for hearing was fixed in the notice that was sent to the petitioner. The respondent did not present any further arguments or rely on any specific authorities or precedents.