Facts of the Case

M/s Maa Saharda Infratech, through its proprietor Shishir Yadav, challenged an order dated 21.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the appellate order dated 23.07.2025 dismissing its appeal as beyond limitation. The petitioner's core complaint was that the show cause notice preceding the Section 73 order fixed the same date both for filing a reply and for the personal hearing, effectively foreclosing any real opportunity to be heard. The Standing Counsel, on instructions, did not dispute this factual position.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether fixing an identical date for filing a reply to a show cause notice and for the personal hearing renders the resultant Section 73 order arbitrary.
  2. Whether such a defect amounts to a violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
  3. What relief follows once the issue is found to be covered by earlier binding precedent.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Argued that the order passed under Section 73 was arbitrary because the same date had been fixed both for filing the reply and for the personal hearing, denying any meaningful opportunity to respond before being heard.
  • Relied on the co-ordinate Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Another (Writ Tax No.303 of 2024) as covering the identical issue.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, did not dispute the fact that the same date had been fixed for filing the reply and for the personal hearing.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the impugned order violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, since fixing an identical date for reply and hearing left no realistic opportunity for the taxpayer to be heard after filing a response.
  • Held that the issue being covered by the judgment in Mahaveer Trading Company, both the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 and the appellate order dated 23.07.2025 stood quashed.
  • Allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Fixing the same calendar date for both filing a reply to a show cause notice and for the personal hearing is treated as an inherent defect that violates Section 75(4), because it deprives the taxpayer of a genuine opportunity to be heard on the reply actually filed.
  • This is now a recurring, well-recognised ground in Uttar Pradesh GST litigation, tracing to the Mahaveer Trading Company line of rulings, and applies irrespective of whether a subsequent appeal was itself filed within limitation.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 – governs demand and recovery for tax not paid or short paid other than by fraud.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – mandates a genuine opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse order is passed.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the assessee, with both the original and appellate orders quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
  • Case No.: Writ Tax No. 932 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhatia
  • Date of Order: 16 September 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.