Facts of the Case

M/S Dev Logistics, through its proprietor, challenged an order dated 29.04.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, along with the appellate order dated 16.10.2025 dismissing its appeal as beyond limitation. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing had been granted while passing the order under Section 74.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether marking "NA" against the column for the date of personal hearing in the show cause notice amounted to denial of the opportunity of hearing.
  2. Whether such denial vitiated the assessment order, notwithstanding that the petitioner had not specifically requested a hearing in its reply.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the order under Section 74; the show-cause notice itself had "NA" mentioned against the date fixed for personal hearing.
  • The issue stood covered by the decisions in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. (Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, dated 04.03.2024) and Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Ors.; 2022 (4) ADJ 75.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel submitted that the opportunity of hearing had in fact been granted but not availed by the petitioner and, further, that in the petitioner's reply no request for a hearing had been made.

Court Order / Findings

  • On the sole ground that "NA" had been marked against the personal hearing date, and following the decisions in Mahaveer Trading Company and Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals, the Court held that the petitioner had not, in fact, been afforded an opportunity of hearing as mandated.
  • The petition was allowed; the order dated 29.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 16.10.2025 were quashed.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Where a show cause notice under Section 74 marks "NA" against the field for the date of personal hearing, this is treated by the Allahabad High Court as tantamount to non-grant of the mandatory hearing, vitiating the resultant order — regardless of the Department's contention that the taxpayer did not separately request one in its reply.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — governs determination of tax involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, requiring an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. Both the assessment order and the appellate dismissal were quashed, with the matter remanded for a fresh order after hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 1353 of 2025; Coram: Justice Manish Kumar; Order dated 21.11.2025.

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.