Facts of the Case

M/S Hardeep Enterprises, through its proprietor Paramveer Singh, challenged an order dated 27.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the subsequent appellate order dated 23.09.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended no genuine opportunity of personal hearing had been granted, notwithstanding that it had appeared and filed replies before the authority on three separate occasions. Notably, the State's counsel produced an Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024, issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., acknowledging systemic defects across multiple cases where personal hearing columns were marked 'N.A.' or scheduled before the reply deadline, or where order dates did not match the personal hearing date.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order under Section 73 can be sustained where the taxpayer filed written replies on three occasions but was never separately granted an oral personal hearing before the order on merits was passed.
  2. Whether the Commissioner's own office memo acknowledging such systemic defects reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 75(4).

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Though the petitioner filed replies on 23.9.2022, 07.10.2022 and 27.10.2022, no notice was ever issued specifically for an oral hearing, and no personal hearing was in fact granted before the order on merits was passed.
  • Relied on the binding Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 [2024:AHC:38820-DB], holding that a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) cannot be bypassed merely because written replies were filed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that no specific date had been fixed for personal hearing, but candidly placed before the Court the Commissioner's own Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024, acknowledging that such defects were being noticed across the State and directing corrective compliance by field formations.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court extracted at length the Division Bench's reasoning in Mahaveer Trading Company, that opportunity of personal hearing must be granted before any adjudication order is passed, regardless of whether substantive law has changed.
  • Since the record showed the petitioner had filed written replies but was never granted a genuine personal hearing before the adverse order was passed under Section 73, the Court held the orders dated 27.04.2024 and 23.09.2025 could not be sustained.
  • Both orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order only after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.
  • The writ petition was allowed.

Important Clarification

  • Filing a written reply to a show-cause notice does not by itself discharge the mandatory requirement of Section 75(4) to grant a personal hearing before an adverse order is passed.
  • The date of the final order must be commensurate with, and not precede, the actual date of personal hearing — a defect the Commissioner's own internal memo acknowledged was recurring across the State.
  • Systemic administrative acknowledgment of a defect (through a departmental circular or memo) strengthens, rather than weakens, the taxpayer's case for relief on that ground.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, UPGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid/short paid, no fraud alleged.
  • Section 75(4), UPGST Act, 2017 – mandatory personal hearing on request or before an adverse decision.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee, M/S Hardeep Enterprises — both the demand order and time-barred appellate dismissal were quashed and the matter remanded for a proper hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 6) – Writ Tax No. 1102 of 2025 – Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. – Order dated 09.10.2025.

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.