Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Siddhi Associates, through its proprietor Suneel Kumar, challenged an order dated 12.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and a further order dated 15.10.2025 dismissing its appeal as beyond limitation. Though the petitioner had appeared and submitted replies on three separate dates before the adjudicating authority, no personal-hearing notice was ever issued and the authority proceeded straight to a merit order on the last reply.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether denial of personal hearing under Section 75(4) vitiated the Section 73 order despite the petitioner having filed replies on three occasions.
  2. Whether the linked appellate dismissal for limitation could survive independently of this procedural defect.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the order under Section 73, despite the petitioner's replies on three dates; the issue stood covered by Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. (2024:AHC:38820-DB).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel, on instructions, conceded that no date was fixed for personal hearing.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reiterating Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court held it "strange and wholly unacceptable" for revenue authorities to deny the mandatory Section 75(4) hearing merely because the substantive law had changed, and referred again to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax's Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024 acknowledging systemic anomalies in fixing hearing dates across field formations.
  • Applying this dictum, the Court quashed both the order dated 12.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 15.10.2025, allowed the petition, and remanded the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Filing written replies to a show cause notice, even on multiple occasions, does not dispense with the mandatory personal-hearing requirement under Section 75(4) before an adverse GST order is passed; the adjudicating authority must still fix and communicate a hearing date.
  • The Allahabad High Court treats this as a recurring, acknowledged systemic lapse (per the Commissioner's own Office Memo No.1406 dated 12.11.2024) rather than an isolated error, resulting in near-automatic quashing and remand wherever the hearing-date defect is established.

Sections Involved

  • Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.
  • Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid or short paid, or ITC wrongly availed, for reasons other than fraud.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the Assessee; both the assessment and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after a genuine personal hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1473 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.
Date of Order: 3rd December, 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.