Sheranwali Steels PVT. LTD. Lko. Thru. Its Director vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sheranwali Steels Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 27.11.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner's primary contention was that no specific date of hearing was fixed, and the impugned order did not record that any hearing was held prior to its passing. The petitioner argued that this violated the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent was the State of U.P. through the Secretary, Revenue, and another.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, was unsustainable. The Court found that the order appeared to have been passed in contravention of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no specific date of hearing was fixed and no hearing was recorded prior to its passing. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, as mandated by statute and natural justice, is invalid. The Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 27.11.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act, specifically for not affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without fixing a specific date of hearing and without recording any hearing prior to its issuance. This, according to the petitioner, contravenes Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates that an opportunity of being heard shall be granted before passing an order, and also violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent (Standing Counsel).
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12441 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 102 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sheranwali Steels Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra,Dileep Pandey 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 an order dated 27.11.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act.
The neat contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that no specific date of hearing was fixed. The order impugned also does not record that any hearing date was fixed or hearing was recorded prior to passing of the impugned order.
Prima facie the order impugned has been passed against the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 27.11.2024 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 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.