Kayum Khan vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Kayum Khan, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated 09.12.2025, a show cause notice dated 08.05.2025, and seeking re-adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 08.05.2025, with a reply deadline of 08.06.2025. The petitioner did not file a reply, leading to a reminder on 27.08.2025, fixing 10.09.2025 for personal hearing. Again, no reply was filed. A second reminder was issued on 14.11.2025, in response to which the petitioner submitted a reply with documentary evidence on 28.11.2025. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 09.12.2025 without fixing a further date for personal hearing, rejecting the petitioner's explanation and holding him liable for tax as per the show cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 was in violation of Section 75(4) of the UKGST Act, 2017. The reasoning was that after the petitioner submitted his reply and documentary evidence on 28.11.2025, no date for a personal hearing was fixed by the proper officer. The revenue's counsel could not dispute this fact, and the order itself did not reflect that any such hearing took place. Consequently, the Court found that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to. The ratio decidendi is that a personal hearing must be provided after the submission of a reply, especially when documentary evidence is submitted, before passing an order under Section 73 of the UKGST Act. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 and remitted the matter back to the proper officer for passing a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 09.12.2025, passed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of providing a personal hearing after the submission of a reply, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the UKGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that after submitting his reply and documentary evidence on 28.11.2025, no date for a personal hearing was fixed, and the impugned order was passed directly. This, according to the petitioner, constitutes a violation of the opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue could not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of a personal hearing after the submission of the reply. The impugned order itself did not indicate that any such hearing was provided.