Puneet Kesharwani And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko. U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Puneet Kesharwani and Another, challenged an order dated 26.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and a subsequent order dated 30.11.2024 that dismissed their appeal. The petitioners argued that the authorities failed to provide separate dates for submitting a reply and for conducting a hearing, which they contended violated the principles of natural justice and the requirements of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. They also referred to a relevant circular. The State, represented by the Chief Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., and others, was the respondent.
Held
The Court held that the reasoning adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 was squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Court found that the impugned orders were passed without providing the petitioners with adequate opportunity of hearing, specifically by not fixing separate dates for submission of reply and for hearing, thereby violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders. The ratio decidendi is that a failure to provide separate dates for reply and hearing, as required by Section 75(4) and relevant circulars, constitutes a violation of natural justice and warrants the quashing of the order. The respondents were granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of providing separate dates for submission of reply and for hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the authorities did not fix separate dates for the submission of their reply and for the hearing, which is contrary to a circular and violates Section 75(4) of the GST Act, thus vitiating the impugned orders. They relied on the reasoning adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in a previous judgment. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2677 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 18 of 2025 Petitioner :- Puneet Kesharwani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko. U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Mohd. Sheraj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as order dated 30.11.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that no separate dates were fixed for submission of reply and for hearing which is contrary to the circular. It is thus proposed to be argued that the hearing as is required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act was not provided.
The said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024. The said reasoning is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Adopting the said reasoning, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR 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.