M/S Rizvi Medical Agency Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ashraf Husain vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko And 3 Others

Held

The Court allowed the petition, quashing both the order dated 11.12.2023 and the order dated 25.09.2024. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission regarding the non-grant of an opportunity of hearing, citing the mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of the GST Act as per the Division Bench's decision in M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited. While the issue of limitation under Section 73(10) was raised, the Court did not delve into it, focusing instead on the procedural lapse of not providing a hearing. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise the question of limitation before the Assessing Authority in the fresh proceedings. The issue of limitation was expressly left to be decided in the fresh proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rizvi Medical Agency, through its Proprietor Mohd. Ashraf Husain, challenged two orders. The first order, dated 11.12.2023, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 25.09.2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the first order as being time-barred. The petitioner argued that the order dated 11.12.2023 was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 73(10) of the GST Act and that no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent is the State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Tax and Registration, and three others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 11.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was beyond the period of limitation prescribed 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 Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order dated 11.12.2023 was passed beyond the limitation period stipulated in Section 73(10) of the GST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner contended 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, decided on 12.02.2024) which held Section 75(4) to be mandatory. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent.