Neeraj Massey vs. Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Neeraj Massey, has filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST (respondent no.1) under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial year 2020-21. Also under challenge is an order dated 02.01.2026, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contends that the order under Section 73 was passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. A show cause notice dated 14.11.2024 is cited, where the column for the date of personal hearing was marked 'NA', indicating no personal hearing was granted.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST, under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside. The reasoning is that the order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. The Court noted that the show cause notice dated 14.11.2024 itself indicated 'NA' for the date of personal hearing, confirming the petitioner's assertion that no hearing was provided. Consequently, the Court found the order to be in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. The writ petition was allowed, and the order was set aside. The Department was granted liberty to pass a fresh order after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The issue regarding the dismissal of the appeal on limitation was rendered moot by this decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act, due to the absence of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the order passed under Section 73 is unsustainable as it was made without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing. This is evidenced by the show cause notice dated 14.11.2024, which indicated 'NA' against the column for the date of personal hearing. This failure to provide a hearing contravenes the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State/Revenue Department.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by respondent no.1 u/s 73 of CGST/UKGST Act, 2017 in respect of the financial year 2020-21. Order dated 02.01.2026 is also under challenge by which appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order u/s 73 dated 13.01.2025 has been passed without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore it is in violation of the principles of natural justic
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.