M/S Yes Surgical,Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Mr. Ajay Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax, Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Yes Surgical, through its Proprietor Mr. Ajay Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 19, 2024, passed by the third respondent under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the date fixed for hearing was earlier than the date on which the petitioner was able to file their submissions. This procedural irregularity formed the basis of the challenge to the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, passed by the opposite party no.3 under Section 73 of the GST Act, was liable to be quashed. The Court followed its previous decision in the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals vs Commissioner Commercial Tax and others (Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021, decided on March 4, 2022). The reasoning was that the authority had not provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as the hearing date was fixed prior to the petitioner's ability to file their submissions. The ratio decidendi is that a fair hearing requires sufficient time for the assessee to present their case after receiving notice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the concerned authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law, ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing for the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed on the ground that the date fixed for hearing was prior to the date of filing of submissions by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the authority failed to provide adequate opportunity for hearing by fixing the hearing date before the petitioner could submit their response. They relied on the principle of natural justice, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against this contention in the judgment.