Facts of the Case: Ventura Sales And Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Mohammad Tariq Siddiqui, challenged an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, along with the subsequent appellate order dismissing its appeal in the absence of the appellant. The petitioner's grievance was twofold: that no opportunity of hearing was granted before the original order under Section 73 was passed, and that the appeal itself was dismissed without being heard on merits because the petitioner's representative could not appear on the fixed date owing to personal exigency.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether an order under Section 73 of the UPGST Act passed without granting an opportunity of hearing is sustainable.
  2. Whether dismissal of the appeal in the absence of the appellant, without adjudicating on merits, can stand alongside such a defective original order.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • No opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the order under Section 73.
  • The appeal was dismissed solely because the petitioner's representative could not appear on account of personal exigency, without any consideration of the merits.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, did not dispute that no opportunity of hearing had in fact been granted while passing the order under Section 73 of the UPGST Act.

Court Order / Findings:

  • Given the Standing Counsel's candid concession that no hearing opportunity was granted, the Court found the impugned order to be violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
  • Holding that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier decision in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024, decided 04.03.2024), the Court quashed both the assessment order and the appellate order.
  • The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Important Clarification:

  • An order under Section 73 passed without affording the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act is liable to be quashed regardless of a subsequent appellate dismissal for non-appearance — the defect at the original adjudication stage cannot be cured by a procedural dismissal at the appellate stage, and the entire matter must be remanded for fresh adjudication after due hearing.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 73, UPGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid, short paid or ITC wrongly availed for reasons other than fraud.
  • Section 75(4), GST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee.

Case Details: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 1088 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Date of Order: 26th 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.