M/S Nabros Pharma PVT. LTD. Thru. Its Director Kavit Muktikumar Shah vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and a subsequent order dated 10.12.2024 that dismissed their appeal. The petitioner contended that the initial order under Section 73 was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment from the same High Court in support of their argument. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the assertion that no opportunity of hearing was granted.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 25.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was indeed passed without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing to be granted. This non-compliance also constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, both the order dated 25.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2024 were quashed. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that statutory mandates for natural justice, such as providing a hearing, must be strictly followed, and non-compliance renders consequential orders invalid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing as stipulated in Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the absence of a hearing violates Section 75(4) of the GST Act and the principles of natural justice, citing the precedent in M/S Shakti Brick Field Hardoi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The revenue did not contest this point, implicitly conceding that no hearing was provided.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5855 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 37 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Kavit Muktikumar Shah Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Dubey, Aayush Pankaj Tiwari, Peeyush Pankaj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Shri Aayush Pankaj Tiwari and Sri R. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order dated 10.12.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted while passing order under Section 73 of GST Act which is mandatory in terms of Section 75(4) of GST Act. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/S Shakti Brick Field Hardoi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC-LKO:77782. 4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted.
Considering the said fact, prima-facie, the impugned order is without following the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, both the impugned orders i.e. 25.04.2024 & 10.12.2024 are quashed.
Matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Present petition stands allowed in above terms. 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.