Facts of the Case

M/s Sanjay Traders, through its proprietor Devendra Pratap Tripathi, challenged an order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, as well as the order dated 09.10.2025 dismissing its appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's grievance was that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted before the Section 73 order was passed. Records showed the petitioner had appeared and filed replies on three occasions (23.09.2022, 07.10.2022 and 27.10.2022) in response to notices, and the adjudicating authority proceeded to deal with the merits of the last reply and pass an order — but without issuing any further notice or fixing any date of personal hearing thereafter.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an adjudication order passed on the merits of a written reply, without granting a separate opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act, is sustainable.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No opportunity of personal hearing was granted before the order under Section 73 was passed, contrary to the Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court reiterated that opportunity of personal hearing must be provided before an adjudication order is passed, and referred to Section 75(4), which mandates a hearing where a written request is received or where any adverse decision is contemplated.
  • The Court also referred to Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., flagging recurring defects such as leaving the personal hearing date blank ('N.A.'), fixing hearing dates before the reply due date, and mismatched dates of order and hearing.
  • Since none of the exceptions (waiver of hearing, or non-availing of an offered hearing) applied here — the petitioner was simply never offered a hearing at all after its last reply — the impugned orders dated 25.04.2024 and 09.10.2025 were held to be in violation of natural justice and quashed.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Even where an assessee has filed detailed written replies and the adjudicating authority has considered them on merits, a separate and specific opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) is mandatory before passing an adverse order, unless the assessee has clearly waived that right or failed to avail an opportunity that was actually offered.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, U.P. GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid/short paid other than by fraud.
  • Section 75(4), CGST/SGST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of hearing on written request or where adverse decision is contemplated.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee, with both the original demand order and the appellate dismissal quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case No.: WRIT TAX No. 1210 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.
Date of Order: 28.10.2025

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.