M/S S.K.Enterprises Thru.Proprietor Sajid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Institutional Finance Govt. of India Lucknow and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1576 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶1Having heard Shri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the revenue, we find that as per Section 75 (4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted before any adverse decision is taken against any person, here a registered person/petitioner.

¶2Undeniably, the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 73(1) of the Act, which did not intend to call for a reply for the petitioner but did not propose to grant personal hearing as the abbreviation "NA" was specified against the column "date of personal hearing". In that, against the columns to specify the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue for personal hearing, the abbreviation "NA" i.e. 'Not Applicable' was recorded.

¶3In view of the above position admitted on the record, the only conclusion possible to be drawn is that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing.

¶4Thus, upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However by virtue of the express provision of Section 75 of the Act, even in that situation the petitioner did not lose its right to participate at oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S S.K.Enterprises Thru.Proprietor Sajid Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Institutional Finance Govt. Of India Lucknow And Another .....Respondent(s) the petitioner, may be dropped.

¶5In other words, the rules of natural justice as are ingrained in the statute prescribe dual requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.

¶6On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that detailed reply was not required. The discrepancies in the returns as noticed by the adjudicating authority would have been clarified if opportunity of personal hearing had been granted.

¶7In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure. The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out-come of the proceedings.

¶8Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order. In that regard the petitioner may file its final reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from date. Thereafter, the petitioner may appear before the assessing authority on the date fixed by the assessing authority, whereafter the assessing authority may pass appropriate reasoned order.

¶9Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. December 16, 2025 Lokesh Kumar WTAX No. 1576 of 2025 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench