M/S Sriram Traders Thru. Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Gupta And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue,Lko. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sriram Traders, through its proprietor Ajay Kumar Gupta, and another, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed ex-parte, without granting any hearing. Furthermore, the notice served upon the petitioner did not specify a date for hearing. The respondent was the State of U.P. through its Secretary, Revenue, Lucknow, and another official.

Held

The Court held that the order impugned dated 23.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, could not be sustained and was quashed. The reasoning was that the order was passed ex-parte without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This also amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court found the sole ground of not granting an opportunity of hearing to be sufficient for quashing the order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 23.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for being ex-parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex-parte and no opportunity of hearing was provided. They further contended that the notice issued did not fix any date for hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.