M/S Pradum Traders Its Proprietor Rajesh Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pradum Traders, through its proprietor Rajesh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice issued by the respondent authority provided the same date for hearing and submission of reply. The petitioner also argued that no date for personal hearing had been fixed previously. The learned Standing Counsel for the State verified the fact that no date for personal hearing was fixed earlier. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) dated 04.03.2024.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition, following its previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. The Court held that the order dated 27.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act was bad in law because the notice issued to the petitioner fixed the same date for hearing and submission of reply. This procedure denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. The Court reasoned that a proper opportunity for hearing requires sufficient time for the assessee to prepare and submit their response and to appear before the authority. The order dated 27.12.2023 was quashed. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a notice fixing the same date for hearing and reply is procedurally flawed and violates principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is vitiated due to the same date being fixed for hearing and submission of reply in the notice, thereby denying the petitioner an adequate opportunity to be heard? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 73 of the GST Act was defective as it provided the same date for both hearing and submission of reply. This procedural flaw, according to the petitioner, denied them a fair opportunity to present their case. They further contended that no personal hearing was fixed earlier, a fact corroborated by the State. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. to support their claim. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner regarding the notice and the absence of a prior personal hearing date. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent.