Facts of the Case

M/S Indra Construction, through proprietor Indrajeet Yadav and another, challenged an order dated 12.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, and the appellate order dated 06.06.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The petitioner had appeared and submitted replies on three separate dates (23.09.2022, 07.10.2022 and 27.10.2022) in response to the show-cause notice, and the adjudicating authority extracted and dealt with those replies on merits in the impugned order, but never issued any further notice for, or granted, an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an adjudicating authority that has received and considered an assessee's written replies on merits, but never fixed or granted a personal hearing, complies with Section 75(4).
  2. What systemic remedial measures the department itself has acknowledged are needed to address this defect.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No personal hearing was granted despite three appearances and three written replies being filed and recorded in the impugned order.
  • Relied on the Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024), which held opportunity of personal hearing is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4), independent of the merits.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, confirmed that no date was in fact fixed for personal hearing.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reproducing paragraphs 5-11 of Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court reiterated that Section 75(4) makes personal hearing mandatory wherever an adverse decision is contemplated, and that filing a written reply does not substitute for it unless the noticee waives the right or fails to avail an offered hearing.
  • Significantly, the Court recorded that the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, noting similar recurring defects across litigation, had apprised the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, who issued Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024 to all field formations acknowledging that hearing-date/time columns were routinely left as "N.A.," that hearing dates were sometimes fixed before or on the same date as the reply deadline, and that orders were often not passed on the date of personal hearing itself, directing these practices be discontinued.
  • Applying this dictum, the Court held the impugned orders dated 12.12.2023 and 06.06.2025 could not be sustained and quashed both, remanding the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Recording a written reply and dealing with it on merits does not discharge the mandatory obligation under Section 75(4) to grant personal hearing before an adverse order.
  • The Allahabad High Court has placed on record the Commissioner of Commercial Tax's own Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024, which formally acknowledges systemic defects across the state — blank hearing-date columns, hearing dates fixed before the reply deadline, and orders not passed on the hearing date — and directs field formations to discontinue these practices, giving assessees a documented departmental admission to rely on in similar cases.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/U.P. GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid, non-fraud, under which the original order was passed.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 — mandatory personal hearing before an adverse order.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — limitation for filing an appeal, relevant to the dismissed appellate order.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. Both orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1248 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Jaspreet Singh
Date of Order: November 7, 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.