Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67629-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1817 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Mount Victoria Granites Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 27.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the UP Goods and Services Act, 2017 ('the Act') whereby demand has been created against the petitioner. 2. Submission have been made that notice was issued under Section 73 of the Act wherein the date of filing reply was 27.01.2024, however, the date of hearing was fixed as 26.01.2024, i.e., the Republic Day. The petitioner filed the reply and on account of the system as the date of hearing had already been fixed, in the column pertaining to option for personal hearing, 'No' was indicated. However, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of personal hearing and the order impugned was passed after a passage of over three months on 27.04.2024. Further submissions have been made that order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and against statutory provisions as contained in Section 75(4) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that the reply was filed on 10.01.2024 and the order was passed on 27.04.2024 and at no stage, the petitioner has approached the respondents for personal hearing and, therefore, the order passed cannot be faulted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. A bare look at the show cause notice would reveal that date for personal hearing has been fixed without application of mind and/or on account of typographical error wherein the Republic Day has been fixed as the date of hearing and that also prior to the last date of filing of reply. Once, the reply was filed by the petitioner and the authority has taken three months in passing the order impugned, it was incumbent in terms of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which apparently, has not been granted. Therefore, the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority, who will fix a date for providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, the authority would pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 P.Sri./Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad