M/S Ansal Api Infrastructure LTD. Sultanpur Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Prabhu Prakash Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ( Deptt. Of State Tax Govt. ) Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ansal Api Infrastructure Ltd., Sultanpur, challenged an order dated 08.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and a subsequent order dated 07.02.2025 that dismissed their appeal as being beyond limitation. The petitioner's primary contention was that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to a circular requiring the date of the reply to precede the date of the personal hearing. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner, rendered the impugned orders invalid. The case was brought before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition, quashing the orders dated 08.04.2024 and 07.02.2025. The Court found merit in the petitioner's sole contention that the respondent authorities had failed to comply with their own circular, which mandates that the date of the reply must precede the date of the personal hearing. Citing the precedent set in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., the Court held that this procedural lapse was a sufficient ground to set aside the impugned orders. 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 dated 08.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the respondent's own circular mandating that the date of the reply must precede the date of the personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to follow their own circular, which stipulates that the date of the reply must be prior to the date of the personal hearing. This procedural irregularity prejudiced the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) dated 04.03.2024, which dealt with a similar issue. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent State.