Facts of the Case

M/S Jamwanti Filing Station challenged an order dated 20.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, along with the subsequent appellate dismissal dated 23.07.2025 for being beyond limitation. The petitioner's grievance was that no genuine opportunity of personal hearing had been accorded before the adverse order was passed — the show cause notice mentioned 'NA' for the date of personal hearing, and a reminder notice fixed the same date for both filing the reply and attending the personal hearing, making meaningful participation impossible.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether marking the personal hearing date as 'NA' in a show cause notice, and later fixing an identical date for both reply and hearing, amounts to denial of the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4).
  2. Whether such a defect vitiates both the original assessment order and the subsequent appellate dismissal on limitation.
  3. Whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh order after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that no genuine opportunity of hearing was accorded, since the show cause notice left the personal hearing date as 'NA', and the reminder notice thereafter fixed the same date for both filing the reply and the personal hearing — leaving no real window to be heard after replying.
  • Reliance was placed on the earlier Division Bench decision in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (judgment dated 04.03.2024), which had already condemned identical defects in personal hearing scheduling.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions, did not dispute the underlying facts — that 'NA' was mentioned for the personal hearing date in the SCN and that the reminder fixed the same date for both reply and hearing.

Court Order / Findings

  • On the sole ground that the issue was directly covered by Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court allowed the petition without further elaboration.
  • The Court quashed both the original order dated 20.08.2024 passed under Section 73 and the appellate order dated 23.07.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred, applying the settled principle that a defectively-scheduled or effectively denied personal hearing vitiates the adjudication regardless of the subsequent appellate outcome.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Marking the personal hearing date as 'NA' in a show cause notice, or later fixing it on the same date as the reply deadline, is treated by the Allahabad High Court as a substantive denial of the mandatory hearing under Section 75(4), not a mere technical irregularity.
  • Such a defect is fatal to the assessment order regardless of whether a subsequent appeal was dismissed on limitation — both orders fall together and the matter is remanded to the SCN/hearing stage.
  • This ruling adds to a growing line of Allahabad High Court decisions (Mahaveer Trading Company, Jay Maa Durge Traders, and this case) systematically enforcing proper personal-hearing scheduling in UP GST assessments.

Sections Involved

  • Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – mandates a personal hearing wherever an adverse decision is contemplated, the basis for quashing.
  • Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017 – the provision under which the original demand order was passed.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee — both the assessment order and the appellate dismissal were quashed for denial of personal hearing, with the matter remanded for a fresh, hearing-compliant order.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 764 of 2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:46292)
Coram: Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.
Date of Order: 08.08.2025

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.