M/S Maa Savitri Medical Store Thru. Proprietor Amresh Chandra Srivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Savitri Medical Store, through its proprietor Amresh Chandra Srivastava, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.08.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that they were not provided with an opportunity of hearing. They argued that neither the initial notice nor the two subsequent reminders fixed a date for hearing, and the impugned order itself did not indicate that any hearing was granted. The respondent was the State of U.P. and other authorities.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 was prima facie violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that the petitioner was not accorded an opportunity of hearing, as evidenced by the absence of a hearing date in the notice and reminders, and the lack of any record of hearing in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court found that the order could not be sustained. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The Court quashed the order dated 09.08.2023 and allowed the writ petition. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 09.08.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act, by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing. They pointed out that no date for hearing was mentioned in the notice or the reminders, and the order did not reflect that any hearing took place. This, according to the petitioner, violated statutory provisions and the fundamental principles of natural justice. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no argument for the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15210 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 200 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Savitri Medical Store Thru. Proprietor Amresh Chandra Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 09.08.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not accorded the opportunity of hearing. He argues that in the notice as well as in the two reminders, no date was fixed for hearing. The order impugned also does not record that any opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner.
Finding the order impugned to be prima facie violative of Section 75(4) of the Act and also in violation of principles of nature justice, cannot be sustained. The order impugned dated 09.08.2023 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA 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.