M/S Satakshi Contractors PVT. LTD. Thru. Director Mr. Boop Narayan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Lko And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Satakshi Contractors Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated December 13, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and a subsequent order dated January 30, 2025, which dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the initial order under Section 73 was ex-parte and passed without providing a mandatory hearing, despite Section 75(4) of the GST Act. A previous writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Subsequently, an appeal was filed but was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the basis of limitation.
Held
The Court held that the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which stipulate that an opportunity of hearing must be granted, were not followed in passing the order dated December 13, 2023. The Court found that the perusal of the impugned orders clearly indicated a non-compliance with this mandatory provision. Consequently, the Court quashed both the order dated December 13, 2023, and the subsequent order dated January 30, 2025, which dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed in violation of a mandatory procedural requirement, such as the right to a hearing, is unsustainable. The Court allowed the writ petition, remanded the matter to the authority to pass fresh orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and directed the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner during the appeal process.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated December 13, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order dated December 13, 2023, was ex-parte and passed without granting a hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. They contended that even if no reply was filed to the show cause notice, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided. This crucial issue, they argued, was not considered in the previous writ petition (Writ Tax No. 302 of 2024) which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Revenue's arguments: The respondent (State of U.P.) did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of Section 75(4).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9313 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 74 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Satakshi Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Mr. Boop Narayan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punit Kumar Srivastava,Ishank Srivastava,Rakesh Srivastava,Shashank Srivastava 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 13.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the as the order dated 30.01.2025, whereby, the appeal has been dismissed as being beyond limitation.
Submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 13.12.2023 is an ex-parte order and no notice for hearing was given. He further argues that even if the petitioner has not filed any reply to the show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have grant a hearing in terms of the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which has not been done.
It also appears from the record that challenging the said order, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Tax No.302 of 2024, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. The appeal was preferred and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
In sum and substance, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order under Section 73 of the GST Act has been passed without giving a mandatory hearing as prescribed under Section 75(4) of the GST Act and this issue was not considered while deciding Writ Tax No.302 of 2024. 6. Considering the fact that the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) are essentially to be followed and the same has not been followed as is clear from the perusal of the orders impugned. On the said limited ground, the impugned orders 13.12.2023 and the order dated 30.01.2025, are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded to pass orders afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The amount deposited by the petitioner while preferring the appeal shall be refunded on moving appropriate application. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 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.