M/S Unique Marketing Services Thru. Proprietor Vijay Kumar Chopra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Unique Marketing Services, through its Proprietor Vijay Kumar Chopra, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act dated December 14, 2023, and a subsequent appellate order dated February 22, 2025. The appellate order had rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice served indicated a hearing date that was prior to the date the petitioner was supposed to submit their reply. The State's counsel verified this factual discrepancy. The petitioner relied on 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.) dated March 4, 2024.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition, quashing the order dated December 14, 2023, and the appellate order dated February 22, 2025. The Court's decision was based on the sole ground that the notice issued for hearing under Section 73 of the GST Act was procedurally flawed, as the hearing date preceded the date for submission of the reply. This finding aligns with the principle of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court followed its previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. (supra) which addressed a similar procedural defect. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and the subsequent appellate order are vitiated due to a procedural irregularity where the notice for hearing was dated prior to the deadline for submitting a reply? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued for the hearing under Section 73 of the GST Act was flawed because the date of hearing was fixed prior to the date for submission of the reply. This procedural defect, they contended, rendered the subsequent orders invalid. They relied on the judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. (supra) which dealt with a similar issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State conceded to the factual discrepancy regarding the dates in the notice and the reply submission.