Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67706-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1800 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Anil Medical Stores Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act'). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, as raised in the present petition pertaining to failure to provide opportunity of hearing, stands squarely covered by the judgment in M/s J.V.D. Metals Vs. State of U.P. and another : Writ Tax No. 1411 of 2025, wherein this Court, taking into consideration the submissions made, has allowed the writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the issue, as raised in the present petition, is covered by the order in M/s J.V.D. Metals (supra). 4. The Court in M/s J.V.D. Metals (supra) observed/laid down as under: “7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. A bare look at the show cause notice and reminder issued by the respondent reveals that while date of filing reply has been indicated, in the column pertaining to personal hearing 'N.A.' has been indicated. As to what prompted the respondent in refusing opportunity of personal hearing in the first instance as well as in the reminder notice, cannot be deciphered. The plea raised that as the reply to the show cause notice has not been filed, there was no necessity to provide opportunity of personal hearing, cannot by itself cure the defect in issuing the show cause notice by beforehand denying opportunity of hearing, which action apparently is in violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act. 9. Filing of reply in a given case may be necessary to defend the allegations made in the show cause notice and in absence whereof, by mere oral submission the same cannot be defended, however, the said aspect cannot be decided beforehand by the authority by denying opportunity of personal hearing by indicating 'N.A.' in the column pertaining to date of personal hearing. 10. In a given case, even without filing reply to the show cause notice, the assessee can defend the same by legal submissions, say for example by showing during the course of personal hearing that the notice is barred by limitation and/or the authority lacks jurisdiction and therefore, filing and non filing of reply by itself cannot justify denial opportunity of personal hearing, which is firmly entrenched in provision of Section 75(4) of the Act, which requires opportunity of hearing to be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. 11. In view of the above fact situation, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.12.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 2, in case by 30.04.2025, any reply to the show cause notice is filed, the authority would take the same into consideration and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass order in accordance with law.” 5. In view of the judgment in case of M/s J.V.D. Metals (supra), the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back. 6. In case by 15.05.2025, any reply to the show cause notice is filed, the authority would take the same into consideration and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 P.Sri. (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad