M/S Shree Sai Palace v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 226; GST statutory provision - Section 269

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: It has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that ex- cept permitting the petitioner to reply to the show cause no- tice, opportunity of personal hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner. Thus the legislative mandate of Section 75(4) of the Act to the authorities to afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee i.e. to follow principles of natural justice, has been completely violated by the respondents while passing the impugned order. Reported disposition: Allowed / set
• 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

c. The reply could not be filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid notice. Subsequently on 7.7.21 an order under section

12. It has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that except permitting the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice, opportunity of personal hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner. Thus the legislative mandate of Section 75(4) of the Act to the authorities to afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee i.e. to follow principles of natural justice, has been completely violated by the respondents while passing the impugned order.

13. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, can also not be accepted inasmuch as it is settled law that availability of alternative remedy is not a complete bar to entertain a writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Certain exceptions have been carved out by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be entertained even there is an alternative remedy. One of the principle in this regard is that if the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is admitted case of the respondents that no opportunity of personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017, was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

14. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned standing counsel has produced before us a photo stat copy of the order of the Assessing Authority relating to the impugned order and perusal thereof shows that no opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 was not afforded to the petitioner. Thus, there being patent breach of principles of natural justice, the present writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order.”

“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

“3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a straitjacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will depend on

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 25.11.2022, while reply to the show-cause-notice had been entertained on 14.11.2022. 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.

cision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as "NO" in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed. This Court has already taken a similar view in M/s. Mohini Traders (supra). 8. In view thereof, all the writ petitions are allowed on the sole ground of opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned in all four writ petitions are quashed.”

Operative decision and relief

orders are quashed and set aside. Consequential relief to follow. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Shree Sai Palace v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: it has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that ex- cept permitting the petitioner to reply to the show cause no- tice, opportunity of personal hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner. thus the legislative mandate of section 75(4) of the act to the authorities to afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee i.e. to follow principles of natural justice, has been completely violated by the respondents while passing the impugned order. reported disposition: allowed / set 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. 50 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: It has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that ex- cept permitting the petitioner to reply to the show cause no- tice, opportunity of personal hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner. Thus the legislative mandate of Section 75(4) of the Act to the authorities to afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee i.e. to follow principles of natural justice, has been completely violated by the respondents while passing the impugned order. Reported disposition: Allowed / set Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 226; GST statutory provision - Section 269—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 2; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 226; GST statutory provision - Section 269 and the decision date 2024-02-21; 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 Shree Sai Palace v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 50 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2024-02-21. 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 Shekhar B. Saraf,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 2; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75(4); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 226; GST statutory provision - Section 269. 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 2 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 29 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — 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 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 226 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 269 — 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 892 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