Allowed¶40

Shri Bhushan Lal Midha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2025/1463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. GST Act Section 73 order dated 13.02.2025 and appellate dismissal dated 06.10.2025 (appeal beyond limitation) quashed for denial of opportunity of personal hearing; Mahaveer Trading Company (2024:AHC:38820-DB) relied on; writ allowed; remand for fresh adjudication after hearing; recovery subject to fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; orders dated 13.02.2025 (Section 73, U.P. GST Act) and 06.10.2025 (appellate dismissal for limitation) quashed; matter remanded to assessing authority for fresh order after opportunity of hearing, recovery remaining subject to fresh outcome. ¶40

Shri Bhushan Lal Midha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the adjudication order dated 13.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, passed without any opportunity of personal hearing, can be sustained. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned orders cannot be sustained because no opportunity of personal hearing was granted before the Section 73 adjudication (the State conceded no date was fixed for personal hearing); accordingly the orders dated 13.02.2025 and 06.10.2025 are quashed, following the dictum in Mahaveer Trading Company.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

Key takeaways

The amount recovered in pursuance of the quashed order shall remain subject to the final outcome of the fresh orders to be passed on remand.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT TAX No. - 1463 of 2025 (Jaspreet Singh, J.; decided December 8, 2025): An adjudication order dated 13.02.2025 under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the appellate order dated 06.10.2025 dismissing the assessee's appeal as beyond limitation were challenged. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel conceded on instructions that no date was fixed for personal hearing. Relying on the Division Bench dictum in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No.303 of 2024; 2024:AHC:38820-DB) that an opportunity of personal hearing must be provided before any adverse assessment/adjudication order, the Court held the impugned orders unsustainable and quashed both. Petition allowed; matter remanded to the assessing authority for a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing, with amounts already recovered to remain subject to the outcome of the fresh orders.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 1463 of 2025

¶3

Shri Bhushan Lal Midha

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

nance o. n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Siddharth Nandwani
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Sameer Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶11

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the GST Act') as well as the order dated 06.10.2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the order under Section 73 of the GST Act. It has also pointed out that in absence of any opportunity the order impugned cannot be sustained and this issue was dealt by the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 [Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr; 2024:AHC:38820-DB].

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, states that in so far as the issue of opportunity of hearing is concerned, no date was fixed for personal hearing.

¶14

Before adverting to the aforesaid submissions it will be appropriate to notice the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company (supra) wherein in paras-5 to 11 it was held that under:

¶15

WTAX No. 1463 of 2025

¶16

¶17

"5. It is basic to procedural law under taxing statutes that opportunity of personal hearing must be provided to an assessee before any assessment/adjudication order is passed against him. Thus, we find it strange and wholly unacceptable merely because the substantive law has changed, the revenue authorities have changed their approach and are failing to observe that mandatory requirement of procedural law. They have thus denied opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

¶18

Section 75(4) of the Act reads as below:

¶19

"An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person."

¶20

Perusal of the impugned order reveals, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority on three dates. With respect to those dates, the impugned order reads as below:

¶21

(i) "जारी नोिटस के अनुपालन में िदनांक 23/9/2022 को ्शी एफ०सी० चौहान (राजू चौहान) अिधव्वा फमर् उपिस्थत हुए। नोिटस का स्प्िीकरण ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया जो िनम्न

¶22

(ii) "जारी नोिटस के अनुपालन में िदनांक 07/10/2022 को पुनः ्श ी एफ०सी० चौहान (राजू चौहान) अिधव्वा फमर् उपिस्थत हुए। नोिटस का स्प्िीकरण ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया जो िनम्न है...

¶23

(iii) "जारी नोिटस के अनुपालन में िदनांक 27/10/2022 को पुनः ्शी एफ०सी० चौहान (राजू चौहान) अिधव्वा फमर् उपिस्थत हुए। नोिटस का स्प्िीकरण ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया जो िनम्न है.........

¶24

Thus, it is established on record that on all three dates, the petitioner had been called to file its reply on the points specified in the respective show-cause notice issued. The petitioner submitted its reply on each occasion. Those replies have been extracted in the impugned order. After recording the

¶25

WTAX No. 1463 of 2025

¶26

¶27

reply submitted on 27.10.2022, the adjudicating authority has chosen to deal with the merits of the replies submitted and passed a merit order.

¶28

It transpires from the record, neither the adjudicating authority issued any further notice to the petitioner to show cause or to participate in the oral hearing, nor he granted any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶29

On query made, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits, in light of similar occurrences, noticed in other litigation, he had apprised the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. In turn, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, has issued Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024. The same has been addressed to all Additional Commissioner to be communicated to all field formations for necessary compliance. A copy of the same has been made available to this Court. It reads as below:

¶30

"1. The column in which date of personal hearing has to be mentioned, only N.A. is mentioned without mentioning any date.

¶31

The column in which time of personal hearing has to be mentioned, only N.A. is mentioned without mentioning time of hearing.

¶32

In some cases, the date of personal hearing is prior to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted this is non-est and this practice has to be discontinued. The date of reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be definitely prior to the date of personal hearing.

¶33

In some cases, the date of personal hearing is on the same date to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted-this is non-est and this practice has to be discontinued. The date of reply to

¶34

WTAX No. 1463 of 2025

¶35

¶36

the Show Cause Notice has to be definitely prior to the date of personal hearing.

¶37

In all cases observed, the date of passing order either u/s 73(9)/74(9) etc. of the Act is not commensurate to the date of personal hearing. It is trite law that the date of the order has to be passed on the date of personal hearing. For eg., the date of furnishing reply to SCN is 15.11.2023 and date of personal hearing is 17.11.2023, then the date of order has to be 17.11.2023"

¶38

In view of the facts noted above, before any adverse order passed in an adjudication proceeding, personal hearing must be offered to the noticee. If the noticee chooses to waive that right, occasion may arise with the adjudicating authority, (in those facts), to proceed to deal with the case on merits, exparte. Also, another situation may exist where even after grant of such opportunity of personal hearing, the noticee fails to avail the same. Leaving such situations apart, we cannot allow a practice to arise or exist where opportunity of personal hearing may be denied to a person facing adjudication proceedings. "

¶39

Since the aforesaid dictum is applicable in the present facts and circumstances, accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders dated 13.02.2025 & 06.10.2025 are accordingly quashed.

¶40

With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed .

¶41

Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The amount as recovered in pursuance of the impugned order shall be subject to the final outcome of the fresh orders.

¶42

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶43

December 8, 2025

¶44

Rakesh/-

¶45

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shri Bhushan Lal Midha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bhushan Lal Midha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajhar Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow

Alok Vashisht Vs Commissioner Lucknow

Smt. Rampati Objection Filed Vs Additional District Judge Sitapur

M/S New Akhilesh Traders Thru.Proprietor Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance ) Govt. of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Ram Kishore Manish Kumar Thru.Proprietor Sunil Kumar Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Chitra Mishra Vs Smt. Purnima Mishra and 12 Others