M/S Saurabh Ornaments Thru. Proprietor Saurabh Kaushal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Saurabh Ornaments, through its proprietor Saurabh Kaushal and another, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 21, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. They also challenged a subsequent order dated February 27, 2024, which dismissed their appeal. The petitioner's primary contention was that the order under Section 73 was arbitrary because the same dates were fixed for filing a reply and for the hearing. The respondent was the State of U.P. through the Chief Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow, and two others. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.
Held
The Court held that the present case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024, decided on March 4, 2024). Following this precedent, the Court found the petitioner's submission regarding the arbitrariness of the order under Section 73 to be valid. The reasoning was that fixing the same dates for filing a reply and for hearing violates the principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to prepare and present their defense. Consequently, both the impugned order dated March 21, 2023, and the order dated February 27, 2024, were quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated March 21, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is vitiated by arbitrariness due to the same dates being fixed for filing a reply and for hearing? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under Section 73 of the GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act suffers from arbitrariness because the dates fixed for filing the reply and for the hearing were the same, thereby denying adequate opportunity to present their case. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13646 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 131 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Saurabh Ornaments Thru. Proprietor Saurabh Kaushal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Mohd. Sheraj,Shashank Vikram Verma 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 the order dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 27.02.2024 whereby, the appeal has been dismissed.
The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as the same dates were fixed for filing reply and for hearing.
This aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another: Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, decided on 04.03.2024. 5. The present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 and the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 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.