M/S Capital Graphics,Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Mr. Rishi Chopra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Govt. Of U.P. Lko. U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Capital Graphics, through its Proprietor Mr. Rishi Chopra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The order was issued by the respondent revenue authorities. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that no specific date for hearing was fixed, but the petitioner was informed that they could appear for hearing within one month. The Court considered the procedural history and the arguments presented by both sides.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also in violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the respondent's submission that no date was fixed and the petitioner could appear within one month does not satisfy the requirement of fixing a specific date for hearing. The absence of a proper opportunity of hearing renders the order unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 24.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, by not granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is bad in law as no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This violation of a statutory provision and the principle of natural justice vitiates the order. Respondent's contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that no specific date for hearing was fixed, but the petitioner was given the liberty to appear for hearing on any date within one month. The respondent contended that this arrangement was sufficient.