GST Order Set Aside by High Court for Lack of Proper Opportunity of Hearing

The High Court cancelled the GST orders against the petitioner and directed the tax authority to hear the case again after giving a proper opportunity to the taxpayer.

Background of the Case

The present case has been filed by M/s Arpit Enterprises, through its partner Manisha Gupta, against the State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Tax and Registration, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, and three others in the High Court (Allahabad), challenging the order dated January 28, 2024, which was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and another order dated August 6, 2025, by which the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit.

Petitioner’s Arguments

During the hearing in the High Court (Allahabad), the petitioner’s counsel argued that the authorities had passed the order without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard. According to the counsel, this was a violation of the legal requirement that a taxpayer must be given a chance to present their case before any adverse order is passed.

Submission Made by Standing Counsel

On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the State informed the court, based on official instructions, that a notice had been sent to the petitioner. However, the date fixed for the hearing in that notice was earlier than the date on which the petitioner submitted their reply.

Decision of the High Court

After considering all the facts of the case, the high court observed that such a notice could not be considered proper compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which requires that a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided.

The court also relied on its earlier decision in the case of “Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Another” (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024) dated March 4, 2024, where a similar issue had been addressed.

As a result, the court allowed the petition and quashed both the orders dated January 28, 2024, and August 6, 2025.

Lastly, the court directed that the matter be remanded to the assessing authority to issue a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity of being heard.