Facts of the Case

M/S Mathura Prasad Mukesh Kumar, through its proprietor Sri Atul Kumar Gupta, challenged an order dated 23.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, imposing tax, interest and penalty of Rs.45,39,400/-, along with the underlying show-cause notice dated 30.05.2024 and reminder notices dated 24.07.2024 and 08.08.2024. The petitioner's grievance was that the date fixed for personal hearing coincided with the date fixed for filing reply to the show-cause notice — both were 29.06.2024 — leaving no real opportunity to be heard after submitting the reply. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), per Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Prashant Kumar, heard the writ petition on 16 October 2025, applying the coordinate-Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax (2024 U.P.T.C. (117) 734).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether fixing the date of personal hearing on the same date as the date for filing reply to a Section 73 show-cause notice violates principles of natural justice.
  2. Whether such a defect can be raised in a writ petition filed beyond the limitation period for a statutory appeal.
  3. Whether the self-imposed bar of alternative remedy applies where natural justice has been breached at the adjudication stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The date of reply to the show-cause notice and the date fixed for personal hearing were both 29.06.2024, effectively denying any real opportunity of hearing after the reply was considered.
  • Relying on Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax, it was argued that the date of personal hearing must always follow the date of reply, and the date of the final order must correspond to the date of personal hearing.
  • The very initiation of proceedings and the first show-cause notice was improper, vitiating everything that followed, so the writ petition should be entertained despite the delay in filing.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific rebuttal is recorded from the Department distinguishing the facts from Mahaveer Trading Company; the order proceeds primarily on the petitioner's submissions and the coordinate-Bench precedent.
  • The State's own position, reflected in the referenced Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024, acknowledged recurring defects across field formations in fixing hearing dates not commensurate with SCN reply dates.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on Mahaveer Trading Company, which held that the date of personal hearing must be after the date fixed for reply, and the date of the adjudication order must correspond to the date of personal hearing — non-compliance renders the process non-est.
  • Before any adverse order is passed under Section 73/74, a genuine and distinct opportunity of personal hearing — separate from and subsequent to the date of reply — must be afforded; denial of this vitiates the order regardless of the availability of an appellate remedy.
  • Since the initiation of the show-cause notice itself was flawed, the Court held the self-imposed bar of alternative remedy inapplicable in this exceptional natural-justice violation, despite the petition being filed beyond the normal appeal limitation.
  • The ex parte order dated 23.08.2024 was quashed and set aside; the Department was granted liberty to issue a fresh show-cause notice and proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • Fixing the date of personal hearing on or before the date fixed for filing reply to a GST show-cause notice is impermissible; the hearing date must be after the reply date.
  • The date of the final adjudication order under Section 73/74 must be commensurate with — that is, on or after — the date of the personal hearing actually granted.
  • Violation of these sequencing requirements amounts to a breach of natural justice that a High Court can correct under Article 226 even beyond the normal appeal limitation, since the alternative remedy bar is not absolute in such cases.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid or short paid for reasons other than fraud, and the mandatory personal-hearing safeguard before adjudication.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction invoked despite availability of statutory appeal, on grounds of natural-justice violation.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee (petitioner) — the ex parte order was quashed and the department directed to issue a fresh show-cause notice.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1117 of 2025. Coram: Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J. Date of Decision: 16 October 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.