Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29060-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 494 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Katyayani Enterprises Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singh Shrinet, Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'the Act') for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019. 2. Submissions have been made that petitioner was issued a show- cause notice on 20.12.2023 under Section 73 of the Act. The notice provided the date of reply as 19.01.2024, however, in the column pertaining to the date of personal hearing, 'NA' was indicated. The petitioner filed an application on 10.01.2024 seeking 30 days' time to file reply. Whereafter on 16.04.2024, order under Section 73(9) of the Act was passed raising a demand of Rs. 1,62,84,476/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Submissions have been made that an application was filed seeking grant of further time to file reply, the same was not responded to by the Assessing Authority, neither the application was rejected nor any next date for filing the reply was indicated. Further, in the original notice, the personal hearing was denied, however, as required by Section 75(4) of the Act, it was incumbent on the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing, which was not afforded and the order dated 16.04.2024 has been passed and, therefore, for violation of principles of natural justice, the same may be set aside and the respondents be directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order. Further submissions were made that the order impugned, on merits, is wholly arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that petitioner sought 30 days' more time to file reply, however, even on expiry of 30 days, as no reply was filed, the plea regarding the respondent not providing opportunity of hearing cannot be countenanced as in absence of any reply, there was no occasion to afford opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of the record indicates that the initial notice issued to the petitioner, though provided date of filing reply, however indicated that no personal hearing would be granted. The notice was admittedly served and an application was made seeking more time to file reply and admittedly no reply, despite passage of the extended period of time, as sought, was filed. The respondent- authority also did not pass any order on the application seeking time for filing reply and on account of non filing of response, passed ex-parte order. Admittedly, prior to passing of the said order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 7. The provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act, as interpreted by this Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and another : 2024:AHC:38820-DB, require affording an opportunity of hearing before passing of order under Section 73(9)/74(9) of the Act. The plea raised that as no reply was filed, the opportunity of hearing was not required to be afforded also cannot be countenanced as a party can always make submissions pertaining to the subject matter of the show-cause notice even in absence of a reply and, therefore, it cannot be said that in case a reply is not filed, the assessee is not entitled to be afforded opportunity of personal hearing. 8. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the Act is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Maharajganj to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Though, normally for non filing of reply despite seeking extended period of time, we would not have granted more time to file reply, in the peculiar circumstances, when the demand is huge, petitioner would be free to file response to the show-cause notice. 10. The response if filed within a period of 15 days from today, would be taken unto consideration. Whereafter, authority would provide opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad