Allowed

M/S Aas Automobiles Thru. Proprietor Avanish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026WTAX/580/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order set aside because the adjudicating authority marked personal hearing as 'Not Applicable' despite Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act mandating it. The court held written reply and oral hearing are independent rights; remanded for fresh order after reply and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.04.2024 set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 to pass fresh reasoned order after reply within two weeks and personal hearing.

M/S Aas Automobiles Thru. Proprietor Avanish Kumar… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 580 of 2026

¶3

M/S Aas Automobiles Thru. Proprietor Avanish Kumar Pandey

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manas Shukla, Anurag Srivastava, Karan Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶9

Having heard Shri Manas Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revenue, we find that as per Section 75 (4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted before any adverse decision is taken against any person, here a registered person/petitioner.

¶10

Undeniably, the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the Act, but the authority did not propose to grant personal hearing as the abbreviation "NA" was specified against the column "date of personal hearing". In that, against the columns to specify the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue for personal hearing, the abbreviation "NA" i.e. 'Not Applicable' was recorded.

¶11

In view of the above position admitted on the record, the only conclusion possible to be drawn is that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing.

¶12

Thus, upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However by virtue of the express provision of Section 75 of the Act, even in that situation the petitioner did not lose its right to participate at oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against

¶13

WTAX No. 580 of 2026

¶14

¶15

the petitioner, may be dropped.

¶16

In other words, the rules of natural justice as are ingrained in the statute prescribe dual requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.

¶17

On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that detailed reply was not required. The discrepancies in the returns as noticed by the adjudicating authority would have been clarified if opportunity of personal hearing had been granted.

¶18

In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure. The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out-come of the proceedings.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.04.2024 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order. In that regard the petitioner may file its final reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from date. Thereafter, the petitioner may appear before the assessing authority on the date fixed by the assessing authority, whereafter the assessing authority may pass appropriate reasoned order.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶21

April 22, 2026 Mahesh

¶22

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶23

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

M/S Aas Automobiles Thru. Proprietor Avanish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aas Automobiles Thru. Proprietor Avanish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janki Prasad Tiwari vs Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 5 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 4 Others vs Ex Naik Raj Kumar Dubey

Dr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G. Institute of Medical Sciences Thru. Its Director Sgpgims Lko. and 3 Others

Anjani Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Prem Chand Maurya and 3 Others vs Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 6 Others

Dhiraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others