M/S Chaudhary Associates Lko. Thru. Partner Sumaira Siddiqui vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax U.P. Govt. Lko And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. Regarding the issue of denial of personal hearing, the Court found that while the notice under Section 73 did not specify a date, time, or place for hearing, it was incumbent upon the assessee (petitioner) to file a reply to the show cause notice, which they admittedly received. The petitioner chose to ignore the notice. The Court distinguished this case from Eveready Industries India Ltd. (supra), where the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply and explicitly requested a personal hearing, which was denied. In the present case, the petitioner did not file a reply to the Section 73 notice nor requested an extension or a hearing. Therefore, the plea regarding denial of opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice could not be countenanced. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the statutory remedy available.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chaudhary Associates Lko., through its Partner Sumaira Siddiqui, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte demand order and show cause notice dated December 22, 2023, and September 12, 2023, respectively, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector - 9, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. These notices pertained to the period of July 2017 to March 2018 and were issued under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice lacked a specified date, time, or place for hearing, thus denying them an opportunity for personal hearing. The respondent State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed to have replied to a notice issued under Section 61 on August 8, 2022, but the Court found no record of a reply to the Section 73 notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act? 2. Whether the ex-parte demand order and show cause notice are vitiated due to the denial of an opportunity for personal hearing, as no date, time, or place for hearing was indicated in the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the SGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the absence of a specified date, time, and place for hearing in the show cause notice constitutes a denial of personal hearing, rendering the impugned order void. They relied on the judgment in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and another, which emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity for personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The petitioner also claimed to have replied to a prior notice under Section 61. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent State raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is the appropriate remedy. The State's instructions indicated that the petitioner did not file a reply to the Section 73 notice and did not demand a personal hearing.