Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S R.N. Pathak Dunni Chand, challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the subsequent appellate order dated 12.03.2025 dismissing its appeal, before the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench. The petitioner's sole but decisive contention was that the show cause notice preceding the Section 73 order fixed the very same date for both filing a reply and attending the personal hearing, effectively denying any real opportunity to respond before the hearing took place. The State's Standing Counsel did not dispute this factual position.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether fixing an identical date for filing a written reply and for the personal hearing in a Section 73 show cause notice amounts to denial of opportunity of hearing.
  2. Whether both the original adjudication order and the subsequent appellate order confirming it should be quashed on this ground.
  3. What is the appropriate consequential relief where such a fundamental procedural defect is found.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The show cause notice fixed the same date for filing the reply and for the personal hearing, making it impossible for the petitioner to be meaningfully heard after submitting a considered response.
  • This precise point stood covered by the Court's own ruling in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax), decided on 04.03.2024, on materially identical facts.
  • Both the original order dated 30.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 12.03.2025 upholding it should be quashed, and the matter remanded for a proper hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the factual position that the same date had been given in the notice for filing of reply and for hearing.

Court Order / Findings

  • Since the fact of identical dates for reply and hearing was not disputed, and the issue stood squarely covered by Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court allowed the petition on this sole ground without needing to examine the merits of the underlying tax demand.
  • Fixing the same date in a Section 73 show cause notice for both filing a written reply and attending the personal hearing defeats the very purpose of the opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and vitiates the resulting order, regardless of the merits of the tax demand itself.
  • Both the original order dated 30.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 12.03.2025 were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after genuinely affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Important Clarification

  • A GST show cause notice that collapses the reply date and the personal hearing date into one and the same day denies the assessee a genuine chance to be heard and vitiates the resulting order for breach of natural justice.
  • This ground operates independently of the merits of the tax demand and can result in quashing of both the original adjudication and any confirming appellate order.
  • The Mahaveer Trading Company line of rulings gives UP GST assessees a further, procedurally-focused avenue for relief distinct from the separate 'additional notices tab' service-defect cases.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid, under which the impugned demand was raised.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – mandates an opportunity of personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, the provision effectively breached here.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. Both the original demand order and the appellate order confirming it were quashed, with the matter remanded for a fresh order after a genuine opportunity of hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 539 of 2025; M/S R. N. Pathak Dunni Chand vs State of U.P. and Two Others; Coram: Justice Pankaj Bhatia; Decided on 30.05.2025.

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.