2026 (5) TMI 1799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that is that it happens to be a registered dealer having valid GSTIN No. 09CFEPS4374G2ZI under UPGST Act, 2017. As per the petitioner, scrutiny for the relevant financial year 2018-19 came to be instituted conducted pursuant to the notice being ASMT-10 dated 20.10.2023, according to the petitioner, it was mentioned in the tabulated chart that the reply was to be submitted by 20.11.2023 but in the column pertaining to date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing, and venue where personal hearing will be held 'NA' was mentioned. According to the petitioner, a show cause notice appears to have been issued by the proper officer under Section 73 of the Act and the said notices and orders came....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame to be issued on 20.10.2023 seeking reply by 20.11.2023 then it was incumbent upon the original authority to have fixed the date of hearing, time of hearing and the venue of hearing which as per page 37 is 'NA'. Submission is that there it happens to be clear cut violation of principles of natural justice. In order to buttress the said submission, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Writ Tax No. 507 of 2026 (M/s Anshika Associates Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Amit Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and another), decided on 02.04.2026. Further submission is that since the order in question passed by the original authority was under within the knowledge of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of hearing is to be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Indeed as per the show cause notice dated 20.10.2023 though the reply was to be submitted by 20.11.2023 but the date, time and the venue of personal hearing has not been mentioned. Further it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioner had foregone his right to avail opportunity of hearing. In M/s Anshika Associates Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Amit Nigam (supra), the following was observed as under: "1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the revenue, we find that as per Section 75 (4) of the U.P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently. 6. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that detailed reply was not required. The discrepancies in the returns as noticed by the adjudicating authority would have been clarified if opportunity of personal hearing had been granted. 7. In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The ord....