M/S Abhai Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ashish Kumar Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Abhai Enterprises, through its Proprietor Ashish Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 29.04.2024, was passed under Section 73(9) of the GST Act. The second order, dated 26.11.2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the notice served upon them contained contradictory hearing and reply submission dates (15.02.2024 and 27.02.2024, respectively). Furthermore, the impugned order did not specify whether an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders were violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and were arbitrary in their fixation of dates. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the notice contained contradictory dates for hearing and reply submission, and that the order did not record whether an opportunity of hearing was granted. The Court found these procedural infirmities to be significant. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner is granted a proper opportunity of hearing. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 29.04.2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the GST Act, is violative of Section 75(4) of the Act due to the absence of a recorded opportunity of hearing for the petitioner and arbitrary fixation of dates. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notice issued contained self-contradictory dates for hearing and submission of reply, rendering the subsequent order arbitrary. They also contended that the order did not record whether a proper opportunity of hearing was granted, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent (State of U.P.) did not present any specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contentions.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5852 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 39 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Abhai Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ashish Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration,Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anit Vishal Srivastav,Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 29.04.2024 passed under section 73(9) of the GST Act as well as the order dated 26.11.2024 whereby the the appeal preferred has been dismissed as being beyond limitation.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the notice served upon the petitioner, the date of hearing was fixed as 15.02.2024 and the date of submission of the reply was fixed as 27.02.2024, which is self contradictory. The order impugned also does not record as to whether any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner or not.
Finding the said order to be violative of section 75(4) and also being arbitrary in respect of fixing of dates, the impugned order are quashed. The matter is remanded to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Order Date :- 29.1.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA 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.