Natural justice and turnover-based jurisdiction objections failed where notice was served, reply filed, hearing granted, and the case fell within authorised limits.
Service of notice, filing of reply, and an opportunity of hearing were treated as sufficient to defeat the writ challenge based on denial of natural justice, where the hearing was fixed on the next working day after a holiday; the petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory appellate remedy for remaining objections. The objection that the Commercial Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction under the turnover-based authorisation framework also failed, because the record showed the case fell within the prescribed taxable turnover band. The assessment order was therefore not interfered with on either ground.
Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the assessment order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing was maintainable. (ii) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer, Kaushambi had jurisdiction to pass the order under the turnover-based authorization framework.
Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the assessment order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing was maintainable.
Analysis: The notice under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been served, a reply had been filed, and hearing had been afforded on the next working day after the notified date fell on a holiday. In that view, the grievance of denial of hearing could not be sustained in the writ proceedings, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy for the remaining objections.
Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer, Kaushambi had jurisdiction to pass the order under the turnover-based authorization framework.
Analysis: The circular placed on record authorized Commercial Tax Officers to deal with trading units within a specified taxable turnover band. The material on record showed disclosure of turnover far below the upper limit, and the petitioner's taxable trade turnover was not shown to exceed the prescribed threshold. The objection to jurisdiction therefore lacked merit.
Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the order was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the merits of the challenge and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service of notice, filing of reply, and an opportunity of hearing are shown, a writ challenge to the assessment order on the ground of denial of hearing cannot succeed, and a turnover-based jurisdiction objection must fail when the record shows the case falls within the officer's authorized limits.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
