M/S Arihant Cement Agencies Thru. Proprietor Shobha Jain vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Arihant Cement Agencies, through its Proprietor Shobha Jain, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 30.04.2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 21.02.2025, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the first order. The petitioner's primary contention was that no hearing was provided before the order under Section 73 was passed. The respondent State confirmed that the date for filing a reply and the date for hearing were the same.

Held

The Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders dated 30.04.2024 and 21.02.2025. The Court found that the petitioner was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, as the date for filing the reply and the date for hearing were the same. This procedural defect was considered fatal. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) decided on 04.03.2024, which dealt with a similar issue. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is vitiated due to the denial of an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, specifically concerning the fixing of separate dates for filing a reply and for the hearing itself? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to their own circulars, which mandate fixing two distinct dates: one for filing a reply and another for hearing. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner, deprived them of a fair hearing. The respondent State, through the Standing Counsel, acknowledged that the date fixed for filing the reply and the date for hearing were identical, thereby admitting the petitioner's procedural grievance.