M/S Bhagvan Brick Field Thru. Prop. Smt. Jugrani vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Tax And Registration ) Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bhagvan Brick Field, through its proprietor Smt. Jugrani, challenged two orders. The first order, dated 12.01.2022, was passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 26.12.2022, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the first order as being time-barred. The petitioner contended that the initial order under Section 74 was passed without providing a hearing, contrary to the requirements of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent is the State of U.P. and other tax authorities.
Held
The Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same Court in M/S Santosh Traders v. State of U.P. & Ors. Following the reasoning in that precedent, the Court quashed both the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 and the appellate order dated 26.12.2022. The Court reasoned that the failure to provide a hearing before passing the initial order under Section 74 of the GST Act was a violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed in violation of the mandatory requirement of a hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 12.01.2022, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which requires a hearing to be granted before passing an order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that no hearing was provided before the order dated 12.01.2022 was passed, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This procedural defect vitiates the order. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State of U.P.).
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:903
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 365 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Bhagvan Brick Field Thru. Prop. Smt. Jugrani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Tax And Registration ) Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2022 passed under Section 74 of GST Act as well as the order dated 26.12.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond limitation.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no hearing was accorded while passing the order dated 12.01.2022 in terms of the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act.
The issue raised is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S Santosh Traders v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Neutral Citation No.-2023:AHC-LKO:57518. 5. Considering and following the reasoning as contained in the case of M/S Santosh Traders (supra), the impugned orders dated 12.01.2022 & 26.12.2022 are quashed.
Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.
Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 nishant NISHANT MOHAN 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.