HC Quashes Ex Parte GST Order for Violating Hearing Notice Rule

Case Details: Mahesh Fashion vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 75 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Piyush Agrawal, J.
• Aditya Pandey & Akhil Agnihotri for the Petitioner.
• Ravi Shanker Pandey, ACSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, received a show cause notice under section 73 of the CGST/Uttar Pradesh GST Act. It submitted a reply, and a hearing was fixed. An ex parte order demanding tax, interest, and penalty was passed, which the petitioner claimed was not duly communicated, being uploaded under ‘Additional Notices and Orders’. Upon learning of the order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed ex parte without intimation of the hearing date. The State contended that sufficient opportunities had been provided. The petitioner relied on cited precedents and urged the date-of-hearing rule. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that orders must be passed on the date fixed for hearing or, if later, only after giving prior notice. The appellate order was quashed for violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision after due personal hearing, to be completed expeditiously.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Videocon D2h Ltd. v. State of UP [2016:AHC:51382-DB]
• Wonder Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 [2024:AHC:149222]
• Dilip Kumar Gupta v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 572/110 GST 223 (Allahabad)/[2025:AHC:71562] (para 13) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Videocon D2h Ltd. v. State of UP [2016:AHC:51382-DB] (para 5)
• Wonder Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 [2024:AHC:149222] (para 5)
• Dilip Kumar Gupta v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 572/110 GST 223 (Allahabad) (para 5).