2024 (10) TMI 1047 - HC - GST

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - challenge to order passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The factual matrix is such that the matter is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another, 2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that ' It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied, it would be of no real use. In fact, it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Here, it may be noted, the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings.' The impugned order dated March 4, 2024 is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from date. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court pertains to a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order dated March 4, 2024, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the factual matrix of the case closely resembled a previous judgment of a coordinate Bench in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another. The Court emphasized the importance of offering a personal hearing to the noticee before passing any adverse order in an adjudication proceeding. It was highlighted that denial of the opportunity of a personal hearing would be a violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court clarified that even if the noticee waives the right to a personal hearing or fails to avail the opportunity, the practice of denying such a hearing cannot be allowed to exist. The judgment emphasized that the impugned order in the present case was passed in violation of natural justice principles and could not be sustained. The Court directed the concerned officer to grant the petitioner another opportunity to file a fresh reply, schedule a date for hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated March 4, 2024, and directed the officer to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice by providing the petitioner with a fresh opportunity to present their case. The judgment highlighted the significance of offering a personal hearing before passing adverse orders in adjudication proceedings and underscored that the denial of this opportunity would be a violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court's decision aimed to uphold fairness and due process in the adjudication process, ensuring that the petitioner's rights were safeguarded.