2024 (9) TMI 1014 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of UPGST Act - Denial of opportunity of hearing to the assessee - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The issue decided in MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMIS 2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that ' In view of the facts noted above, before any adverse order passed in an adjudication proceeding, personal hearing must be offered to the noticee. If the noticee chooses to waive that right, occasion may arise with the adjudicating authority, (in those facts), to proceed to deal with the case on merits, ex-parte. Also, another situation may exist where even after grant of such opportunity of personal hearing, the noticee fails to avail the same. ' Upon a perusal of record, it appears that the factual matrix is very similar to one in Mahaveer Trading Company. There are no reason to take a different stand. The impugned order dated 16.12.2023 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 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of natural justice in passing the impugned order under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The High Court heard a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner challenged the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court considered the factual matrix and noted that a similar situation was addressed in a previous judgment by a coordinate Bench in Mahaveer Trading Company's case. The Court highlighted the importance of offering a personal hearing before passing any adverse order in an adjudication proceeding. It emphasized that the right to a personal hearing should not be denied to a person facing adjudication proceedings, except in specific circumstances. The Court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and could not be sustained. It directed the concerned officer to grant the petitioner another opportunity to file a fresh reply, schedule a date for hearing, and issue a reasoned order within two months from the date of the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.