Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Adoffice Marketing And Advertising Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 15.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a subsequent order dated 28.06.2025 dismissing its appeal as barred by limitation. Notably, the notice issued to the petitioner itself recorded that "no records were found," and the petitioner argued that in the absence of any record, there was no way it could meaningfully respond, and that the orders were passed without any opportunity of personal hearing at all. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No.303 of 2024).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an adjudication order under Section 73, passed on a notice that itself records the absence of relevant records and without any personal hearing, is legally sustainable.
  2. Whether such a defect vitiates both the original order and a subsequent appellate dismissal on limitation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice issued to the petitioner explicitly indicated that no records were found, making it impossible for the petitioner to meaningfully respond, and rendering the resultant orders patently without jurisdiction.
  • No opportunity of personal hearing was granted at any stage, and the issue was squarely covered by the binding Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the State, on instructions, candidly admitted that in the absence of records, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reproduced its detailed reasoning in Mahaveer Trading Company holding that Section 75(4) mandates a genuine personal hearing before any adverse order, and referenced the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.'s Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024 acknowledging systemic hearing-related defects across field formations.
  • Given the admitted position that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner — compounded by the notice itself recording that no records were found — the Court held that both the Section 73 order dated 15.02.2025 and the appellate order dated 28.06.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred could not be sustained and quashed both.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order only after affording proper opportunity of personal hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Section 75(4) mandates personal hearing before any adverse adjudication order, and an admitted failure to grant such opportunity — particularly where the department's own notice records the absence of supporting records — is a complete and undisputed breach warranting quashing.
  • Such a defect in the original order also vitiates a subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred, since the underlying adjudication was void for want of natural justice from the outset.

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 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. 1216 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.; Date: 03.11.2025.

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.