Case Title: Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P.
Court: High Court of Allahabad
Petition Number: Writ Tax No. 736 of 2024
Category of Dispute: Natural Justice – Opportunity of Personal Hearing
Date of Judgment: May 8, 2024
Relevant Section: Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017
Takeaway: “No Tick Box Can Override Natural Justice”
Facts of the Case
[Para 3–4]
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Aligarh for FY 2018–19 demanding ₹2.44 crores. The only notice issued was dated 06.08.2022, where “NA” was mentioned against the columns for date, time, and venue of personal hearing, effectively denying any oral hearing to the petitioner.
[Para 4–5]
The petitioner argued that denial of a personal hearing violated Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act and relied on the precedent Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax, which held such a hearing mandatory when adverse action is contemplated.
Question(s) in Consideration
[Para 4–7]
- Whether the Assessing Authority is bound to provide a personal hearing before passing an adverse assessment order under Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, irrespective of whether the assessee requested it?
- Whether denial of hearing on the basis of a ‘No’ tick in the online response can justify non-compliance with the principles of natural justice?
Observations of the Court
[Para 7–9]
- Section 75(4) mandates a hearing either upon request or whenever an adverse order is contemplated.
- Relying on Bharat Mint, the Court reaffirmed that personal hearing is not conditional on written request when the outcome is prejudicial.
- The petitioner’s selection of ‘No’ in the online form cannot override this statutory and natural justice requirement.
[Para 9–10]
- The Court emphasized that even a minimal hearing opportunity must be provided in tax matters involving large liabilities to ensure fairness and allow for proper adjudication and appellate review.
Judgment of the Court
[Para 11]
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The impugned assessment order dated 05.11.2022 was quashed. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mirzapur, with instructions to issue a fresh notice within two weeks and grant a real and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Between Fine Lines
- Even if the taxpayer selects ‘No’ for personal hearing online, the Assessing Officer must still offer a hearing before issuing an adverse order.
- Section 75(4) makes such hearing mandatory when the decision adversely affects the taxpayer.
- The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that statutory rights and natural justice cannot be waived by procedural checkboxes.
- The judgment restores the assessment process to ensure fair opportunity and transparency.
- Tax authorities are obligated to document and extend real hearing opportunities, not just formal notice issuance.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
| Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax | [2022] 136 taxmann.com 275 / 92 GST 61 / 59 GSTL 394 / 48 VLJ 325 | Held that opportunity of hearing must be granted before passing any adverse GST order; no specific request is required from assessee | Followed – Hearing mandatory under Section 75(4) |
| Hitech Sweet Water Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat | [2023] 147 taxmann.com 243 / 72 GSTL 243 / 2022 UPTC (Vol. 112) 1760 | Gujarat HC held that denial of hearing before passing adverse orders violates principles of natural justice | Relied upon to affirm natural justice requirement |