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 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The respondent was the State of U.P. through the Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow, and another authority. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the impugned order was passed without providing a personal hearing, which they contended is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 30.12.2023 was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also contravened 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. The Court found this submission to be valid and the impugned order to be contrary to the statutory provision and natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a mandatory personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act, is illegal and liable to be quashed. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order impugned was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates a personal hearing before passing an order. They contended that the failure to provide a personal hearing renders the order illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the respondent (State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner State Tax Lko and Another).