M/S Shiv Brick Field Thru. Prop. Shiv Bhagwan Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Tax And Registration) Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the order dated 12.01.2022, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court found that the non-compliance with this procedural safeguard violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 was quashed. The Court further directed that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal against the order dated 26.12.2022, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal, was rendered moot by the quashing of the original order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiv Brick Field, through its proprietor Shiv Bhagwan Shukla, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.01.2022 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated 26.12.2022, which dismissed their appeal. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the order under Section 74 was passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Standing Counsel for the respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute this factual assertion regarding the lack of a personal hearing.

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 requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order under Section 74 was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing. They relied on the precedent set in the case of Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2022) 48 VLJ 325. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the petitioner's assertion that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.