Fair hearing and condonation of delay are essential in GST adjudication; orders fail if explanation is ignored.

An assessment under the U.P. GST Act was held unsustainable where the hearing date was fixed before the reply deadline, because that sequence denied a meaningful opportunity to respond and rendered the order procedurally unfair. The appellate order was also set aside because the authority rejected the appeal on limitation without considering the assessee's explanation that service of the assessment order had not been effected and that the appeal was filed upon knowledge of the order. The matter was remitted for fresh hearing and decision after affording an effective opportunity of being heard.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was sustainable when the date of hearing was fixed anterior to the last date for filing reply, thereby denying a fair opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation was sustainable when the explanation for delay was not considered.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was sustainable when the date of hearing was fixed anterior to the last date for filing reply, thereby denying a fair opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The notice and hearing dates reflected an inconsistency, as the date of personal hearing preceded the last date for submission of reply. Such a course could not afford a meaningful opportunity to respond before the order was passed. The resulting ex parte assessment was therefore inconsistent with fair procedure.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation was sustainable when the explanation for delay was not considered.

Analysis: The appeal memo contained a specific plea that the assessment order had not been personally served and that the appeal was filed upon knowledge of the order. The appellate authority rejected the appeal without dealing with that explanation and without recording a reasoned consideration of the request for condonation.

Conclusion: The appellate order was unsustainable and was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and appellate orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh hearing and decision after affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of being heard.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication under GST that fixes a hearing before the expiry of the reply period, or rejects a limitation plea without considering the explanation offered, violates fair procedure and cannot be sustained.

---