Facts of the Case

M/S Raj Pharmaceuticals challenged an order dated 31 December 2023 passed under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017, and the appellate order dated 20 January 2025 dismissing its appeal as beyond limitation. It was the petitioner's case that no opportunity of hearing was granted, and that the date of notice and the date fixed for personal hearing were the same.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order passed where the personal hearing date coincided with the reply/notice date satisfies the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4).

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The coincidence of the notice date and personal hearing date left no real opportunity to be heard, and the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, confirmed that the date of personal hearing and the date of filing of reply were indeed the same.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following Mahaveer Trading Company and the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.'s own Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024 (which specifically flags the practice of fixing the personal hearing on the same date as the reply deadline as "non-est" and directs its discontinuance), the Court held that the mandate of Section 75(4) had been violated.
  • The impugned orders dated 31.12.2023 and 20.01.2025 were quashed and the matter remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording a genuine opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Fixing the personal hearing date on the same date prescribed for filing a reply is treated as a "non-est" practice by the Department's own administrative instructions, and independently vitiates the order for breach of Section 75(4).

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, UPGST Act, 2017 – demand of tax not involving fraud or suppression.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – mandatory opportunity of personal hearing.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Assessee – both the demand order and the time-barred appeal dismissal are quashed and the matter is remanded for a fresh order after genuine personal hearing.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
  • Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1207 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice Jaspreet Singh
  • Date of Order: 28 October 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.