M/S Shiv Brick Field Thru. Proprietor 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 January 12, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act was liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission and the reliance placed on the precedent case. Consequently, the impugned order of January 12, 2022, was quashed. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shiv Brick Field, through its Proprietor Shiv Bhagwan Shukla, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 12, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated December 26, 2022, which dismissed their appeal. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the order under Section 74 was passed without providing a mandatory opportunity of hearing as stipulated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 12, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing as prescribed 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 placed reliance on the decision in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83274 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 341 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Shiv Brick Field Thru. Proprietor Shiv Bhagwan Shukla 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 as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 12.01.2022 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 26.12.2022 whereby, the appeal preferred was dismissed.
The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order under Section 74, no opportunity of hearing was provided as prescribed under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Reliance is placed in the case of Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2022) 48 VLJ 325. 4. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the said fact that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted and thus, the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to p
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.