Tax Assessment Order Quashed Due to Denial of Oral Hearing, Principles of Natural Justice Upheld Under Section 75(4)

HC allowed petitioner's challenge to tax assessment order. The court found the Assessing Authority violated principles of natural justice by not providing mandatory oral hearing as required under Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act. Order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh proceedings with proper opportunity for hearing.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by Assistant Commissioner for tax period April 2018, denial of opportunity of oral hearing before Assessing Authority.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the tax period April 2018, where a demand in excess of Rs. 3 crores was raised. The main contention raised was the denial of the opportunity of oral hearing before the Assessing Authority. The petitioner argued that he was completely denied the opportunity of oral hearing as the Assessing Authority did not provide any chance for personal hearing as required by law.

The petitioner relied on Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, and previous court decisions to support the claim that the Assessing Authority was obligated to afford an opportunity for personal hearing before passing an adverse assessment order. The petitioner emphasized that the absence of a hearing was contrary to established legal principles and cited relevant case law to strengthen the argument.

On the other hand, the revenue's counsel argued that the petitioner had declined the opportunity of hearing by selecting 'No' in the online reply to the show-cause notice. Therefore, they contended that the petitioner could not now claim any error in the order based on lack of hearing.

After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court found that the Assessing Authority was indeed required to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring minimal opportunity of hearing, especially in cases involving significant civil liability. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice and provide a proper opportunity for hearing before proceeding further.

---