M/S Gopal Traders,Sitapur Thru. Proprietor Shri Amit Jaiswal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner State Tax Lko. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gopal Traders, through its Proprietor Shri Amit Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The order was passed by the respondent, the State of U.P. through the Commissioner State Tax, Lucknow, and another authority. The petitioner's primary contention was that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was issued. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned order and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 was contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also a violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that no personal hearing was accorded prior to the passing of the order, which is a mandatory requirement. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a mandatory personal hearing to the assessee is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.04.2024. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates a personal hearing before passing an order. This failure to provide a personal hearing, according to the petitioner, renders the order contrary to the principles of natural justice. The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.