Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Digitext Technologies India Private Limited, challenged an order dated 08.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent order dated 27.10.2025 dismissing its appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner's grievance was that no genuine opportunity of personal hearing was granted before the adverse order — the date fixed for personal hearing actually preceded the date fixed for filing the reply to the show cause notice, rendering the hearing process illusory. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench ruling of the same Court in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No.303 of 2024), which had considered an identical sequencing defect.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an adjudication order under Section 73 passed with the personal hearing date fixed prior to the reply date violates the mandatory hearing requirement in Section 75(4).
  2. Whether such a defect vitiates both the original order and a subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No effective opportunity of personal hearing was granted before the adverse order was passed.
  • The hearing date was fixed prior to the date by which the reply to the show cause notice was to be filed, making the process meaningless.
  • The issue stood squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Mahaveer Trading Company, which condemned this exact sequencing error.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on instructions, candidly conceded that the date of personal hearing was indeed prior to the date fixed for filing the reply.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reproduced its earlier holding in Mahaveer Trading Company that Section 75(4) mandates a genuine personal hearing before any adverse order, and that fixing the hearing date before the reply date, or passing the order without proximate hearing, is a practice that "must be discontinued," as also acknowledged in the Commissioner's own Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024 issued to all field formations.
  • Applying this dictum, the Court held both the original Section 73 order and the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred could not be sustained and quashed both, allowing the writ petition.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order only after affording a proper opportunity of personal hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Under Section 75(4), the date fixed for personal hearing must follow, not precede, the date fixed for filing reply to a show cause notice, and the adjudication order must be passed proximate to the date of hearing.
  • The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.'s Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024 formally directs field officers to correct this recurring sequencing defect across the state.
  • Orders suffering this defect are liable to be quashed even where an intervening appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, UPGST/CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid, other than fraud cases.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – mandatory opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee — both the original order and the time-barred appellate dismissal were quashed, with fresh adjudication directed after proper hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; WRIT TAX No. 1297 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.; Date: 13.11.2025.

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.