M/S Anand Industrial Enterprise Pole Division Ayodhya Thru. Partner Shrinivas Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Anand Industrial Enterprise Pole Division, through its Partner Shrinivas Agrawal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the same dates were fixed for filing a reply and for a hearing. This procedural issue was previously considered by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another.
Held
The Court held that the present case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another. The reasoning was that the procedural defect, where the same dates were fixed for filing a reply and for hearing, denied the petitioner adequate opportunity. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 was quashed. The Court's ratio is that a party must be granted sufficient time to file a reply and be heard separately, and fixing the same date for both is a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the authority concerned to pass an order afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same dates were fixed for filing a reply and for hearing, thereby denying adequate opportunity to the petitioner? (Question of law and mixed fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the fixation of the same dates for filing a reply and for hearing violated principles of natural justice and denied them a fair opportunity to present their case. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another, which dealt with a similar procedural irregularity. Respondent's contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondent did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11477 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 93 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Anand Industrial Enterprise Pole Division Ayodhya Thru. Partner Shrinivas Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek,Ashish Kumar Yadav 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 the order dated 08.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that same dates were fixed for filing reply and for hearing.
This aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another: Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, decided on 04.03.2024. 5. The present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to pass an order afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 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.