Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S New Anmol Communication Centre, through its proprietor Azmat Ali, challenged an order dated 20.08.2024 passed under the GST Act, along with an appellate order dated 24.10.2025 dismissing its appeal as beyond limitation. The petitioner contended that no genuine opportunity of hearing was granted, since the date fixed for personal hearing preceded the date by which it was required to file its reply to the show cause notice — an administrative sequencing error the Department itself later acknowledged and moved to correct.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order can stand where the personal hearing date fixed in the notice was earlier than the date fixed for filing the reply to the show cause notice.
  2. Whether the Commissioner's own corrective office memorandum on this sequencing defect governs the outcome of the present case.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the order impugned under the GST Act, since the date of personal hearing was prior to the date fixed for filing the reply.
  • This issue was dealt with by the Division Bench of the same Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024; 2024:AHC:38820-DB).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on instructions, stated that the date of personal hearing was indeed prior to the date of filing of reply, effectively conceding the factual premise of the petitioner's grievance.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reproduced the Division Bench's observations in Mahaveer Trading Company, which had noted that revenue authorities were failing to observe the mandatory procedural requirement of Section 75(4) — opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision — and had highlighted that Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. issued Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024 directing all field formations that the date of reply to a Show Cause Notice must definitely be prior to the date of personal hearing, and that the date of the order must be commensurate with the date of the personal hearing.
  • Applying this dictum, since the date of personal hearing preceded the date fixed for filing the reply, the impugned orders could not be sustained.
  • The orders dated 20.08.2024 and 24.10.2025 were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Important Clarification

  • A show cause notice sequencing that fixes the personal hearing date before the date for filing a reply is procedurally invalid — reply must precede hearing, and the order must follow the hearing date, per the U.P. Commissioner's own Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024.
  • Courts treat this sequencing defect as a substantive denial of the mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), warranting quashing of the order regardless of the merits of the underlying tax demand.

Sections Involved

  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of hearing before an adverse order.
  • Section 73/74, CGST Act, 2017 — provisions under which the underlying demand order was passed.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. Both the original and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh order after proper hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1278 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.
Date of Order: 10.11.2025

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.