Case Law Details
Excellence Trades and Services Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a demand of ₹81,58,509 was raised against the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice dated 31.10.2023 specified 30.11.2023 as the last date for filing a reply, while fixing the date of personal hearing as 16.11.2023, which was prior to the deadline for submitting the response. The petitioner submitted its reply on 30.11.2023 and argued that, due to the sequence of dates mentioned in the notice, it had no effective opportunity to seek or avail a personal hearing. Despite this, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order raising the tax demand without granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
It was further argued that fixing the date of hearing before the last date for filing a reply rendered the opportunity of hearing an empty formality and amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of the Court in M/s Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another, where, under similar circumstances, the order had been set aside.
The learned Standing Counsel did not dispute that, apparently due to a typographical error, the date of personal hearing had been fixed prior to the date prescribed for filing the reply. It was also not disputed that the petitioner had, in effect, not been provided an opportunity of hearing.
The Court observed that Section 75(4) of the Act envisages granting an opportunity of hearing. Since this requirement had been negated by fixing the hearing date before the reply date, the impugned order could not be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the order dated 05.01.2024 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after obtaining any further response from the petitioner and providing an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 05.01.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) raising demand to the tune of Rs. 81,58,509/-.
2. Submissions have been made that the show cause notice dated 31.10.2023, indicated the date of filing reply as 30.11.2023 and the date of personal hearing as 16.11.2023, which date was prior to the date of filing of the reply, the petitioner filed the reply to the show cause notice on 30.11.2023 wherein, the petitioner had no option to seek opportunity of hearing. The respondents, have passed the order dated 05.01.2024 raising the demand without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Further submissions have been made that the very fact that the date of hearing was prior to the date of filing reply, the said opportunity was an empty formality and this Court in M/s Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another : Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024, in similar circumstances, has set aside the order passed, which was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact that the date, apparently on account of some typographical mistake, was fixed prior to the date of filing reply and that the petitioner, in fact, was not provided any opportunity of hearing.
5. In view of above fact situation, wherein the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act, envisage providing opportunity of hearing and the same apparently has been negated on account of fixing date of hearing prior to the filing of reply, the order impugned dated 05.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05.01.2024 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority which after seeking further response, if any, from the petitioner and providing opportunity of hearing would pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Author Bio
