M/S Unique Marketing Services Thru. Proprietor Vijay Kumar Chopra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Govt. Of U.P. Lko. U.P. 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 April 8, 2024, and a subsequent appellate order dated February 22, 2025. The appellate order had rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay. The primary contention raised by the petitioner was that the notice issued for hearing specified a date prior to the date by which the petitioner was required to submit its reply. This factual assertion was verified by the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in a similar case.

Held

The Court held that the procedural irregularity in the notice, where the hearing date was fixed prior to the reply submission date, was a valid ground for quashing the impugned orders. This defect violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner adequate opportunity to present its case. The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. Consequently, the Court quashed both the order dated April 8, 2024, and the appellate order dated February 22, 2025. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a notice for hearing that precedes the deadline for filing a reply is procedurally defective and violates natural justice, warranting the quashing of consequential orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is vitiated due to a procedural irregularity where the date of hearing in the notice preceded the date for submission of the reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice, and consequently, whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal on delay is sustainable? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 73 of the GST Act and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued for hearing was flawed as it scheduled the hearing before the deadline for submitting the reply. This procedural defect prejudiced the petitioner's right to be heard and present its case effectively. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) as precedent. Respondent's contention: The State, through its learned Standing Counsel, verified the factual assertion regarding the dates in the notice. No specific argument was recorded for the State beyond this verification.