Disposed

M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road Faizabad Thru. Its Partner Kaushal Kishore Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024WTAX/83/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Section 73 GST demand order passed without hearing and dismissal of its appeal as time-barred. Finding no denial that no hearing was afforded, contrary to Section 75(4), the court quashed both orders with liberty to the State to issue a fresh demand after proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 21.01.2022 and 14.03.2024 quashed; liberty to State to file fresh demand order after giving opportunity of hearing.

M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road Faizabad Thru. Its… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69345

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 83 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road Faizabad Thru. Its Partner Kaushal Kishore Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.01.2022 whereby an order was passed against the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order dated 14.03.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

¶8

3 . The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order under Section 73 of GST Act, as is clear from the order itself, was passed without affording opportunity of hearing as is required by virtue of mandate of Section 75 (4) of the GST Act. He further argues that the said issue is squarely decided by this Court in Writ-Tax No.176 of 2023, vide judgment dated 28.08.2023, specifically to that effect that has been made in para 12 that no opportunity of hearing was granted nor any date of hearing was fixed by the authority prior to passing of the order under Section 73.

¶9

4 . In the counter affidavit, there is no denial to the specific pleadings made in para 12 of the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was granted; even the impugned order is silent with regard to the grant of opportunity of hearing.

¶10

5 . Considering the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act as well as the following the judgment of Writ-Tax No.176 of 2023, which is squarely covered to the facts of the present case, the impugned orders dated 21.01.2022 (Annexure-2) and 14.03.2024 (Annexure-1) are quashed giving liberty to the State to file a fresh demand order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing.

¶11

6 . The authority shall pass order indicating the date of hearing as well as the time and place of the hearing in specific term and shall proceed accordingly in accordance with law.

¶12

7 . In view of above, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 akverma

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road Faizabad Thru. Its Partner Kaushal Kishore Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road Faizabad Thru. Its Partner Kaushal Kishore Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Viriksh Kumar Alias Birchhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Prithviraj Lodh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and Others

Hafeez Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt Najmeen Begum and 5 Others

Manohar Lal @ Shyam Manohar vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.