M/S Deepak Enterprises Bulaki Adda Lko. Thru. Proprietor Deepak Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing both the order dated 20.04.2024 and the order dated 03.12.2024. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission regarding the non-grant of an opportunity of hearing, deeming it a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, as affirmed by the Division Bench in M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited. While the petitioner also raised arguments concerning the limitation period for the order under Section 73, the Court chose not to delve into those arguments, focusing instead on the procedural violation of not providing a hearing. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise the question of limitation before the Assessing Authority in the fresh proceedings. The issue of limitation under Section 73(10) was expressly left to be decided in the fresh proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deepak Enterprises, challenged two orders. The first, dated April 20, 2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second, dated December 3, 2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner argued that the order under Section 73 was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period and that no opportunity of hearing was granted, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The State was the respondent. The tax period is not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves an initial order under Section 73, followed by an appeal which was dismissed, leading to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 20.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 73(10) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied a mandatory opportunity of hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the order dated 20.04.2024 was passed beyond the limitation period stipulated in Section 73(10) of the GST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited Versus State of U.P. and another (Writ Tax No. 144 of 2024) which held Section 75(4) to be mandatory. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the CSC, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.