M/S Aditya Infratech,Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Sushil Kumar Rawat vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. Of State Tax) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aditya Infratech, through its proprietor Sushil Kumar Rawat, challenged two orders. The first order, dated July 18, 2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated January 20, 2025, dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to adhere to their own circular, which mandates that the date of reply must precede the date of personal hearing. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner, vitiated the proceedings.

Held

The Court allowed the present petition, quashing the orders dated July 18, 2024, and January 20, 2025. The Court followed its previous judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024, decided on March 4, 2024). The reasoning was based on the sole ground raised by the petitioner that the respondents failed to comply with their own circular, which mandates that the date of reply must precede the date of personal hearing. This procedural lapse was considered sufficient to vitiate the impugned orders. The Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing due to this non-compliance. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated July 18, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed on the ground that the date of reply was not prior to the date of personal hearing, as stipulated by a circular issued by the respondents? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents violated their own circular, which requires the reply to be submitted before the personal hearing. This procedural irregularity prejudiced the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) dated March 4, 2024, which dealt with a similar issue. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State.