The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that an order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 must be self-contained, and merely referring to earlier notices is not sufficient.
The case involved M/s Hari Shanker Transport challenging the orders dated 27.04.2024 and 25.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra. These orders were made under Sections 73(9) and 161 of the GST Act respectively.
The petitioner argued that a notice under Section 61 (scrutiny of returns) was issued on 30.11.2023 but went unnoticed as it was only uploaded on the Department’s portal. Later, a notice under Section 73 was issued on 27.01.2024, requiring a reply by 27.02.2024 and setting a personal hearing for 20.02.2024. Since the petitioner did not respond, an order under Section 73(9) was passed, creating a tax liability of ₹85,84,759.
The petitioner also filed a rectification application under Section 161, but it was rejected on 25.10.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that the final order violated Section 75(6) as it did not include reasons or relevant facts.
The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, examined the matter. They noted:
"The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision'. The statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 27.04.2024."
The Court emphasized that even if the petitioner did not respond to notices under Sections 61 and 73, the authority was still legally obligated to pass a reasoned and self-contained order under Section 75(6).
Highlighting this point, the Court stated:
"A final order should be self-contained and merely making reference to previous notices while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self-contained order."
As a result, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2024. It directed the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra to:
- Provide the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice under Section 73.
- After receiving the reply, grant a personal hearing.
- Then pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.
The petitioner has been given four weeks to file the reply from the date of the Court’s order.
Case Title: M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and another [WRIT TAX No. - 606 of 2025]
Counsel for Petitioner : Adarsh Singh, Aloke Kumar, Puneet Arun
Counsel for Respondent: Ankur Agarwal
