Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Ranjan Automobiles (GSTIN 09AIQPR6768N1ZX), challenged a notice under Section 79 dated 14.07.2025, the underlying order dated 29.04.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the subsequent order dated 24.07.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred, before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The petitioner's sole contention was that no opportunity of personal hearing was accorded before the Section 73 order was passed, as the show-cause notice mentioned 'NA' against the column for date of personal hearing, a fact the State's counsel did not dispute.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a Section 73 assessment order passed without according a genuine opportunity of personal hearing, where the show-cause notice left the personal hearing date column marked 'NA', can be sustained.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No opportunity of hearing was accorded before passing the order under Section 73, since the notice did not specify any date for personal hearing.
  • The issue stood squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel, on instructions, conceded that 'NA' was indeed mentioned in the show-cause notice for the date of personal hearing.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court allowed the petition on this sole ground, holding that mentioning 'NA' instead of a specific date for personal hearing amounted to denial of the statutory hearing opportunity.
  • The notice dated 14.07.2025 and the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 24.07.2025 were quashed, and the matter remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • A show-cause notice that records 'NA' against the date/time for personal hearing, instead of a specific date, does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, and any order passed pursuant to such a notice is liable to be quashed.
  • Once such a defect is found, courts will not examine the merits of the tax demand itself, but simply remand for a fresh, procedurally compliant order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 – demand for tax short-paid without fraud/suppression.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – mandatory opportunity of personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.
  • Section 79, CGST Act, 2017 – recovery of tax, invoked here to recover the confirmed demand.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. The Section 73 order, the appellate rejection, and the Section 79 recovery notice were all quashed, with the matter remanded for a fresh order after proper hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench — Case No.: Writ Tax No. 749 of 2025 — Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhatia — Date of Order: 8 August 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.