M/S Chaudhary Associates,Lko. Thru. Partner vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. Of State Tax) Lko. And Others
Held
The Court held that, prima facie, from the communication and the impugned order, it was evident that no hearing was accorded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the order under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act. This was considered a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also a breach of the principle of natural justice. Consequently, both impugned orders were quashed. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Chaudhary Associates, Lko., through its Partner, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 22.12.2023, was passed under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act. The second order, dated 30.08.2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the first order as being beyond the limitation period. The petitioner's primary contention was that no date of hearing was fixed or granted before the order under Section 73 was passed. The respondent, State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of State Tax) Lko. and Others, argued that a communication indicating 'N.A.' against the date of hearing was sent to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, specifically Section 75(4) of the GST Act, due to the absence of a granted hearing? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that no date of hearing was fixed nor any hearing granted prior to the passing of the order under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act, which is a violation of due process. Respondent: Stated that a communication was sent to the petitioner where 'N.A.' was transcribed against the date of hearing, implying an attempt to communicate a hearing date.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71589 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 250 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Chaudhary Associates,Lko. Thru. Partner Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. Of State Tax) Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.12.2023 whereby an order under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act against the petitioner as well as the order dated 30.08.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond limitation.
Confining his argument, the counsel for the petitioner argues that no date of hearing was fixed nor any hearing granted to the petitioner prior to passing of an order under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act.
Learned Standing counsel based upon the documents states that a communication sent to the petitioner as against the date of hearing, N.A. was transcribed.
Thus, prima facie, from the said communication as well as the from the impugned order, it is evi
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.