M/S Brijesh Kumar Singh Thru. Partner Brijesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance) U.P. Govt. Lko. And Another

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2022. The Court agreed with the view taken in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals, holding that Section 75(4) of the Act mandates the Assessing Authority to grant an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order, even if the assessee does not explicitly request it. The Court reasoned that the principle of natural justice requires such an opportunity, especially when a significant civil liability is being imposed. The fact that the petitioner may have marked 'No' or 'NA' in the notice for availing personal hearing was held to have no legal consequence, as the authority was still bound to provide a hearing. The Court emphasized that such an opportunity must be granted in real terms to ensure proper appreciation of facts and reasoned orders. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Raebareli, to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within two weeks, and the petitioner undertook to appear on the next date fixed for expeditious conclusion of proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brijesh Kumar Singh, challenged an order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Raebareli. This order raised a demand exceeding Rs. 7,81,494/- for the tax period March 2020-2020. The petitioner's primary contention was that the only notice issued on 24.11.2022, seeking a reply within 30 days, explicitly marked "NA" against the columns for "Date of personal hearing," "Time of personal hearing," and "Venue where personal hearing will be held." This, the petitioner argued, amounted to a complete denial of an oral hearing before the Assessing Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessing Authority was bound to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing an adverse assessment order, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, notwithstanding the petitioner's potential indication of not availing such hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Section 75(4) of the Act mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of whether the assessee requests it. They relied on the interpretation by a coordinate bench of this Court in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commerical Tax & 2 Ors., and a Gujarat High Court decision in M/S Hitech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat. The petitioner asserted that the "NA" endorsement in the notice denied them their right to oral hearing, making the adverse assessment order contrary to law. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State respondents.