M/S Ramji Kirana Store Thru. Proprietor Ramji v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lucknow And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in exercise of powers under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order dated 31.07.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Operative disposition: In view of the submissions made and recorded above and on perusal of the records, I am of the view that the original order suffers from the vice of not following the mandatory provisions under Section 75(4) of GST Act and thus, is clearly contrary to the mandate cast by virtue of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, I deem it appropriate to quash both the orders contained in Annexure - 1 & 2 i.e. 20.02.2023 & 31.07.2023 and remand the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ordered
• 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

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in exercise of powers under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order dated 31.07.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Vide order dated 03.10.2023, learned counsel for the respondent/State was directed to produce the records to ascertain as to whether any hearing was granted to the petitioner during the assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings or not. The records have been produced, which are perused.

5. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition as well as on perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner who is registered under the GST Act was called upon by means of a notice issued under Section 73 of the GST Act read with Rule 142(5) of the GST Rules to file a reply to the allegations levelled. Thereafter, a reminder notice was also sent to the petitioner on 02.10.2022. In the reminder notice, the date by which the reply was to be submitted was mentioned as 05.12.2022, however, in the columns next to date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing, the word "NA" was transcribed. Subsequently, without granting any hearing as is also clear from the order, an order came to be passed against the petitioner on 20.02.2023. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal, although with a delay. The petitioner had also deposited 10% of the amount. The delay application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by means of an order dated 31.07.2023. The gist of the order is contained in Annexure - 1, however, there is no order either in the original record or with the petition to

6. In the light of the said facts, submission of counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act, it is incumbent upon the respondents to grant a hearing, which admittedly has not been granted, as the date, venue or time of hearing was not mentioned in the reminder notice sent to the petitioner and thus, the order contained in Annxure - 2 passed under Section 73 of GST Act is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. As against the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the same is also without consideration or application of mind. He places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kajal Dutta v. Assistant Commissioner of Sate Tax, Suri Charge & Ors.; M.A.T. No.1924 of 2022 decided on 20.01.2023 wherein the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the statutory provisions governing the limitation under Section 107(1) read with 107(4) of GST Act and the Court was of the view that even in the cases where the appeal is filed beyond the condonable period, the Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can examine the factual circumstances and grant appropriate relief as the appellate remedy is a valuable remedy since an appellate authority can re-appreciate the factual position.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

8. In the light of the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the delay in filing the appeal which was on justifiable grounds, ought to be condoned.

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

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

9. In view of the submissions made and recorded above and on perusal of the records, I am of the view that the original order suffers from the vice of not following the mandatory provisions under Section 75(4) of GST Act and thus, is clearly contrary to the mandate cast by virtue of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, I deem it appropriate to quash both the orders contained in Annexure - 1 & 2 i.e. 20.02.2023 & 31.07.2023 and remand the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Ramji Kirana Store Thru. Proprietor Ramji v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lucknow And 2 Others concerns issue and context: present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in exercise of powers under section 73 of gst act as well as the order dated 31.07.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. operative disposition: in view of the submissions made and recorded above and on perusal of the records, i am of the view that the original order suffers from the vice of not following the mandatory provisions under section 75(4) of gst act and thus, is clearly contrary to the mandate cast by virtue of section 75(4) of gst act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, i deem it appropriate to quash both the orders contained in annexure - 1 & 2 i.e. 20.02.2023 & 31.07.2023 and remand the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ordered 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. 191 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: Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in exercise of powers under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order dated 31.07.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Operative disposition: In view of the submissions made and recorded above and on perusal of the records, I am of the view that the original order suffers from the vice of not following the mandatory provisions under Section 75(4) of GST Act and thus, is clearly contrary to the mandate cast by virtue of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, I deem it appropriate to quash both the orders contained in Annexure - 1 & 2 i.e. 20.02.2023 & 31.07.2023 and remand the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ordered Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107(1)—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 73; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107(1) and the decision date 2023-10-11; 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 Ramji Kirana Store Thru. Proprietor Ramji v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lucknow And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 191 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-10-11. 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 Pankaj Bhatia,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 73; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107(1). 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 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 75(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST DELHI EAST ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY