Facts of the Case

M/S Gulshan Veneer, through its proprietor Manish Goyal, challenged an order dated 23.10.2024 passed under Section 74 of the UP GST Act and an appellate order dated 23.08.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the original order was passed without the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4), so the subsequent limitation-based rejection of the appeal compounded, rather than cured, the underlying breach of natural justice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order passed without the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) is sustainable, irrespective of a subsequent limitation-barred appeal.
  2. Whether an appellate authority's inability to condone delay beyond the statutory period forecloses relief where the original order itself is procedurally defective.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), rendering it patently in breach of natural justice.
  • The appeal was rejected purely on delay, and since the original order was itself bad and the appellate authority lacked power to condone the delay, the violation of natural justice remained unaddressed.
  • Relied on the Division Bench rulings in Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Ors., 2022 (4) ADJ 75, and Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr., Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 [2024:AHC:38820-DB].

Respondent's Arguments

  • On instructions, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing and that the appeal was dismissed purely on delay, and conceded that the dictum in Bharat Mint and Mahaveer Trading Company was applicable.

Court Order / Findings

  • It is mandatory to grant personal hearing under Section 75(4), and the impugned order did not reflect any specific date being fixed for such a hearing.
  • Adopting the reasoning in Bharat Mint and Mahaveer Trading Company, and given the Department's own concession, the petition was allowed.
  • Both the original order dated 23.10.2024 and the appellate order dated 23.08.2025 were quashed as unsustainable.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • Section 75(4)'s personal hearing requirement is mandatory, not directory — an order passed without fixing a specific hearing date is liable to be quashed regardless of whether the subsequent appeal was itself time-barred.
  • A limitation-barred appeal does not insulate the original order from challenge in writ jurisdiction where the underlying breach of natural justice is conceded or demonstrable.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, UP GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
  • Section 75(4), CGST/UP GST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of personal hearing.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — both the original and appellate orders are quashed for want of the mandatory personal hearing, with the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 1601 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.; Order dated 16.12.2025.

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.