M/S Bajrang Building Material v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 75(4)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Varanasi for the tax period 2018-19, whereby demand in excess to Rs.42 lacs has been raised against the present petitioner. Operative disposition: impugned order dated 14.09.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Varansi to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner undertakes to appear before that authority on the next date fixed such that proceedings may be concluded, as expeditiously as
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

1. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Nimai Das, learned counsel for the revenue.

3. Solitary ground being pressed in the present petition is, the only notice in the proceedings was issued to the petitioner on 12.07.2021 seeking his reply within 30 days. Referring to item no. 3 of the table appended to that notice, it has been pointed out, the Assessing Authority had at that stage itself chosen to not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by mentioning "NA" against column description "Date of personal hearing". Similar endorsements were made against the columns for "Time of personal hearing" and "Venue where personal hearing will be held". Thus, it is the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was completely denied opportunity of oral hearing before the Assessing Authority.

4. Relying on Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as interpreted by a coordinate bench of this Court in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commerical Tax & 2 Ors., (2022) 48 VLJ 325, it has been then asserted, the Assessing Authority was bound to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before he may have passed an adverse assessment order. Insofar as the assessment order has raised disputed demand of tax about Rs.42 lacs, the same is wholly adverse to the petitioner. In absence of opportunity of hearing afforded, the same is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals (supra). Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/S Hitech

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would contend, the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing because he had tick marked the option 'No' against the option for personal hearing (in the reply to the show-cause-notice), submitted through online mode. Having thus declined the opportunity of hearing, the petitioner cannot turn around to claim any error in the impugned order passed consequently.

7. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals (supra). Once it has been laid down by way of a principle of law that a person/assessee is not required to request for "opportunity of personal hearing" and it remained mandatory upon the Assessing Authority to afford such opportunity before passing an adverse order, the fact that the petitioner may have signified 'No' in the column meant to mark the assessee's choice to avail personal hearing, would bear no legal consequence.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

8. Even otherwise in the context of an assessment order creating heavy civil liability, observing such minimal opportunity of hearing is a must. Principle of natural justice would commend to this Court to bind the authorities to always ensure to provide such opportunity of hearing. It has to be ensured that such opportunity is granted in real terms. Here, we note, the impugned order itself has been passed on 14.09.2021. The stand of the assessee may remain unclear unless minimal opportunity of hearing is first granted. Only thereafter, the explanation furnished may be rejected and demand created.

Operative decision and relief

impugned order dated 14.09.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Varansi to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner undertakes to appear before that authority on the next date fixed such that proceedings may be concluded, as expeditiously as possible.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Bajrang Building Material v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the assistant commissioner, state tax, sector-6, varanasi for the tax period 2018-19, whereby demand in excess to rs.42 lacs has been raised against the present petitioner. operative disposition: impugned order dated 14.09.2021 is set aside. the matter is remitted to the respondent no.3/assistant commissioner, state tax, sector-6, varansi to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. the petitioner undertakes to appear before that authority on the next date fixed such that proceedings may be concluded, as expeditiously as The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 998 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: Challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Varanasi for the tax period 2018-19, whereby demand in excess to Rs.42 lacs has been raised against the present petitioner. Operative disposition: impugned order dated 14.09.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Varansi to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner undertakes to appear before that authority on the next date fixed such that proceedings may be concluded, as expeditiously as Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 75(4)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 75(4) and the decision date 2023-08-22; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Bajrang Building Material v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 998 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-08-22. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice; Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 75(4). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 75(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY