Fixing date of personal hearing prior to date of filing reply – GST order quashed

Fixing date of personal hearing prior to the date of filing of reply showed non application of mind – High Court

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court quashed GST order u/s 73 of UPGST Act 2017 as the date of personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of filing of reply and even after the reply was filed, no date was fixed for grant of personal hearing.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4604 (2025) (06) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee by way of a Writ Petition challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act).

It was submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 73 of the Act, wherein the date of filing reply was indicated in the month of June, however, date of personal hearing was fixed in the month of May i.e. before the last date of filing the reply.

It was submitted that the petitioner had filed his reply on the date fixed in the month of June, however though the order impugned was passed in the month of August, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner, which was in violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act and, therefore, the orders deservd to be quashed and set aside.

The respondent Department, submitted that irrespective of the wrong indication of dates in the show cause notice, there was sufficient gap between the date of filing of reply and passing of the final order and the petitioner could have appeared before the authority for personal hearing. However, no attempt was made and, therefore, the petition deserved dismissal.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that a perusal of the show cause notice clearly revealed that the authority without application of mind, has fixed date of personal hearing prior to the date of filing of reply and even after the reply was filed, no date had been fixed for grant of personal hearing.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the action of the authorities, clearly reflected violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act.

Consequently, the petition was allowed and the order impugned was quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the authority with direction to fix a date of personal hearing and after hearing the petitioner, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.  

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Expenses of ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.
• Compliance history of supplier can’t be used to invalidate genuine business transactions of buyer
• Reassessment quashed as AO issued notice u/s 148 instead of 153C as reopening was based on search
• Empanelment of CA/CMA /Legal firm for FEMA & other allied services at EPIL
• Individual contract for booking persons for participation in event not event management liable to service tax