Tax Adjudication Order Overturned: Natural Justice Principles Demand Fair Hearing and Reasoned Decision Under UPGST Act

HC quashed tax adjudication order under UPGST Act due to violation of natural justice principles. Court directed tax authority to provide personal hearing, allow fresh reply, and pass reasoned order within two months. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard in administrative proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed under Section 73(9) of the UPGST Act.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The writ petition challenged the order dated April 27, 2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court, after hearing both parties, observed that the factual matrix of the case was similar to a previous judgment by a coordinate Bench in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax. The Court noted that there was no reason to deviate from the principles established in the earlier judgment.

Issue 2: The Court emphasized the importance of offering a personal hearing to the noticee before passing any adverse order in an adjudication proceeding. It highlighted that denying the opportunity of a personal hearing would violate fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court held that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of these principles and could not be sustained. It also clarified that the self-imposed bar of alternative remedy could not be applied in such circumstances as it would not serve the interest of justice.

Judgment: The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 27, 2024, directing the concerned officer to grant the petitioner another opportunity to file a fresh reply, fix a date of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months. Additionally, the petitioner was granted leave to approach the authority for the payment of Goods and Service Tax. If the authority refused, the petitioner could file a separate writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of in light of the above directions and observations.

---