M/S Mishra Enterprises, Jalaluddin Nagar Thru. Partner Anurag Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mishra Enterprises, through its partner Anurag Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under 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 that was sent.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 26.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The primary reasoning 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 absence of a hearing reflected in the impugned order, coupled with the Standing Counsel's statement that no hearing date was fixed in the notice, clearly indicated non-compliance. This non-compliance was also found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 26.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable as it was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, a procedural mandate under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner asserted that this violation also renders the order contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent, through the learned Standing Counsel, stated that no date for hearing was fixed in the notice sent to the petitioner, implicitly acknowledging the absence of a hearing date.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15224 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 209 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Mishra Enterprises, Jalaluddin Nagar Thru. Partner Anurag Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek,Ashish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the said order, which is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
Learned Standing Counsel based upon instructions states that in the notice sent, no date for hearing was fixed.
Considering the said statement and prima facie finding that no hearing is reflected in the impugned order, the order is clearly contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act and is also violative of Article 14, thus on both the said grounds, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR 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.