Natural justice principles require authorities to consider objections and provide a hearing before passing adverse orders.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 5.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') imposing tax Rs. 24,94,844/-, interest Rs. 24,10,224.36.

3. Submission is that the above order was preceded by the show cause notice dated 18.12.2022. The petitioner submitted its reply on 5.1.2023. In proof thereof, reliance has been placed on the acknowledgement issued to the petitioner through the online portal. Further, reply is disclosed to have been filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2023.

4. Despite such written replies submitted, the impugned order makes no discussion of the same. On the contrary, a perverse observation has been recorded therein that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause notices issued to him.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions. On that strength, it has been admitted that inadvertent error has crept in the proceedings.

6. Since rules of natural justice are mandatory to the extent they bind the respondent authority to deal with the objection of the petitioner and if required grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before adverse order is passed, we find no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 5.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of.