Jai Shankar Ent Bhatta Mirzapur Mallawan Hardoi Thru. Vaibhav Singh vs. Commissioner Of State Tax, U.P. Commercial Tax Bhawan Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Jai Shankar Ent Bhatta Mirzapur Mallawan Hardoi, through Vaibhav Singh, challenged two orders: one dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and another dated 30.08.2024 passed in appeal. The petitioner's primary contention was that they were not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing before these orders were passed. The respondent, Commissioner of State Tax, U.P. Commercial Tax Bhawan, Lko., and two others, argued that the notice issued to the petitioner included a common date for both the submission of a reply and the hearing. The dispute concerns the procedural fairness in the assessment and appellate proceedings.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition, quashing the orders dated 11.12.2023 and 30.08.2024. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that an adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided. Following the precedent set in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., the Court held that the procedural requirement of granting a proper hearing was not met. The reasoning was based on the principle that a party must be given a reasonable chance to present their case before an adverse order is passed. The Court directed that the matter be remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as required under the GST Act, when orders dated 11.12.2023 and 30.08.2024 were passed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that an opportunity of hearing was not granted. They relied on the principle that a fair hearing is a fundamental right. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the notice sent to the petitioner specified a date for submission of reply and a date for hearing, which were common. They implied that this constituted adequate notice and opportunity. The respondent also referred to a previous 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.