Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Nova Enterprises, through its proprietor Sushila Jaiswal, challenged an order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, along with an appellate order dated 12.09.2025 dismissing its appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's grievance was that after it had requested an adjournment, no fresh date for hearing was ever fixed by the assessing authority before the order was passed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Section 73 order could be sustained where the assessing authority failed to fix a fresh hearing date following the assessee's adjournment request.
  2. Whether the appeal, dismissed as beyond limitation, should nevertheless be reopened given this procedural defect at the original stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No date for hearing was ever fixed after the petitioner sought an adjournment, denying it a real opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was passed.
  • The issue was squarely covered by the earlier ruling of the same Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024, decided 04.03.2024).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Standing Counsel for the State could not dispute the factual position that no date for hearing was fixed after the petitioner's adjournment request.

Court Order / Findings

  • On the sole ground that no hearing date was fixed following the adjournment request, and following the ratio in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, the Court allowed the petition.
  • Both the original order dated 14.02.2025 and the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds were quashed.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Where an assessee requests an adjournment and the assessing authority fails to fix and communicate a fresh hearing date before passing an adverse order, the order is liable to be quashed for denial of a genuine opportunity of hearing.
  • Such a procedural defect at the adjudication stage can justify setting aside even a time-barred appellate rejection, since the underlying original order itself was vitiated.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid/short paid, requiring a proper opportunity of hearing.
  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 — mandatory hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.

Decision – In Favour of

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

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 973 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.
Date of Order: 22.09.2025

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.