M/S Wadhwa Foods,Lucknow Thru. Partner Sahil Wadhwa vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Govt. Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Wadhwa Foods, Lucknow, challenged an order dated 23.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act and a subsequent appellate order dated 17.01.2025 which dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's primary contention against the initial order was that no personal hearing was granted. While the order indicated an opportunity for hearing was given, the petitioner submitted written arguments and did not insist on a personal hearing. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to being filed beyond the limitation period.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 23.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act was unsustainable. The Court found that Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates granting a personal hearing, and the impugned order did not indicate that a specific date for hearing was fixed. Following the reasoning in the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Ors, the Court concluded that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing, despite the petitioner's submission of written arguments, violated the mandatory procedural requirement. Consequently, both the order dated 23.08.2024 and the appellate order dated 17.01.2025 were quashed. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of a personal hearing, in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 23.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing, as stipulated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the order dated 23.08.2024 was passed without affording a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. They contended that although they submitted written submissions, no specific date for a personal hearing was fixed, rendering the order unsustainable. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Ors (Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021). The respondent, the State of U.P., argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard and had submitted written submissions, thereby waiving the need for a personal hearing. They did not explicitly counter the legal contention regarding the mandatory nature of Section 75(4) or cite any contrary precedent.