Facts of the Case

M/s Raj Medical Stores, through its Managing Partner Raj Kumar, challenged an order dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and the subsequent order dated 07.08.2025 dismissing its first appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the Section 73 order was arbitrary because an earlier date had been fixed for personal hearing than the date fixed for submission of the reply, so that the assessee was, in effect, expected to be heard before it was even due to respond. On instructions, the Standing Counsel for the State went further and confirmed that no date for hearing had actually been fixed at all in the reminder notice issued to the petitioner, compounding the procedural defect.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned order can be sustained where the personal hearing date preceded the reply date, and where the reminder notice failed to fix any hearing date at all.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The order suffered from arbitrariness as the hearing date was fixed prior to the date for submission of reply.
  • The issue is covered by the coordinate Bench ruling in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel, on instructions, confirmed that in the reminder notice no date for hearing was fixed at all.

Court Order / Findings

  • Finding the order violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, and the issue squarely covered by Mahaveer Trading Company, the Court quashed both the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and the limitation-based appellate order dated 07.08.2025.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Where the department itself, on instructions, admits that no personal hearing date was fixed in the statutory notices, that admission alone is sufficient for the court to hold the resultant order violative of Section 75(4) and to quash it without further inquiry into the merits.
  • Courts have treated this defect as curable only through a genuine remand — that is, a fresh order preceded by an actual, dated opportunity of hearing — rather than through any retrospective validation of the earlier ex-parte order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid/short paid.
  • Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse order.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — both impugned orders were quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh order after adequate hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench — Case No.: Writ Tax No. 952 of 2025 — Coram: Hon'ble Justice Pankaj Bhatia — Date of Order: 18 September 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.