M/S Aadisree Medicals PVT. LTD. Lko. Thru. Its Director vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court allowed the present petition, quashing the orders dated April 19, 2024, and December 4, 2024. The Court's decision was based on the sole ground raised by the petitioner, which was the procedural irregularity in the conduct of proceedings. Following its own previous judgment in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.), the Court found that the respondent authorities had failed to adhere to the circular requiring separate dates for filing of reply and for hearing. This failure was deemed a sufficient ground to set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to procedural circulars, especially those ensuring a fair hearing, is mandatory, and non-compliance can lead to the quashing of consequential orders.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aadisree Medicals Pvt. Ltd., challenged two orders: one dated April 19, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and another dated December 4, 2024, which dismissed their appeal as being beyond the limitation period. The petitioner's primary contention was that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to a circular requiring two separate dates for filing a reply and for a hearing. This procedural lapse was the sole ground for the petition. The State of U.P. was the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders dated April 19, 2024, and December 4, 2024, are liable to be quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity in not adhering to the mandate of a circular requiring separate dates for filing of reply and for hearing? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities failed to comply with a circular issued by them, which mandates that separate dates must be fixed for the filing of a reply by the assessee and for the hearing of the case. This failure to provide distinct dates for these procedural steps vitiates the impugned orders. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) dated March 4, 2024, which dealt with a similar issue. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State.