Facts of the Case: M/S Trimurti Infratech, through its Authorized Representative Yogesh Mishra, challenged an order dated 20.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the subsequent appellate order dated 27.08.2025 dismissing its appeal as being beyond limitation. The petitioner's grievance was that no real opportunity of hearing had been granted while passing the Section 73 order, as the Show Cause Notice itself had fixed the date for personal hearing before the deadline for filing a reply had even expired.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether a Show Cause Notice that schedules the personal hearing date earlier than the last date for filing a reply satisfies the requirements of natural justice.
  2. Whether such a defect renders the consequent Section 73 order, and the subsequent appellate dismissal on limitation, unsustainable.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • No genuine opportunity of hearing was granted, since the Show Cause Notice had prescribed an earlier date for personal hearing than the date fixed for filing the reply, making it impossible for the reply to be considered before the hearing.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, confirmed that in the Show Cause Notice, the date fixed for personal hearing was indeed earlier than the date fixed for filing the reply.

Court Order / Findings:

  • Noting the Standing Counsel's candid admission, the Court held 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), which had condemned this very defect of an anachronistic hearing date.
  • On this sole ground, the Court quashed the order dated 20.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 27.08.2025.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a genuine opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification:

  • A Show Cause Notice that fixes the personal hearing date earlier than the deadline for filing a reply defeats the very purpose of the hearing, since the officer cannot meaningfully consider a reply that has not yet been filed — such a sequencing defect independently vitiates the resultant assessment order regardless of any subsequent appellate dismissal on limitation.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 73, GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax liability for reasons other than fraud.
  • Principle of natural justice requiring a coherent sequence between reply deadline and personal hearing date, as laid down in Mahaveer Trading Company.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee.

Case Details: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 891 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Date of Order: 9th 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.