M/S Om Prakash Mishra Ayodhya Thru. Its Proprietor Om Prakash Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Om Prakash Mishra Ayodhya, challenged an order dated July 27, 2022, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and a subsequent order dated March 11, 2024, which dismissed their appeal. The petitioner contended that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing before the initial order was passed, a requirement stipulated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This procedural lapse was the primary basis for their challenge. The respondent was the State of U.P. and other authorities.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders dated July 27, 2022, and March 11, 2024, were liable to be quashed. Adopting the reasoning from the case of M/S Rizvi Medical Agency (supra), the Court found that the petitioner was indeed denied an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice rendered the orders invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed both the order passed under Section 73 and the appellate order. The Court directed the respondents to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed in terms of these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated July 27, 2022, 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 granting an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated July 27, 2022, was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. They relied on the judgment of this Court in M/S Rizvi Medical Agency vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC-LKO:81107, which they contended squarely covers this issue. Respondent's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:859
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 377 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Om Prakash Mishra Ayodhya Thru. Its Proprietor Om Prakash Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek 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 dated 27.07.2022 passed under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order dated 11.03.2024 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed.
Submission of learned counsel for the counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing as is required under Section 75(4) of GST Act was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. The said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/S Rizvi Medical Agency vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC-LKO:81107. 4. Considering and adopting the reasoning as contained in the case of M/S Rizvi Medical Agency (supra), the impugned orders dated 27.07.2022 & 11.03.2024 are quashed.
The respondents would be at liberty 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.