Order U/S 75(6) Of GST Act Must Be Self-Contained, Mere References To SCNs Is Not Sufficient: Allahabad High Court

Section 75 of the GST Act is a general provision relating to determination of tax. Section 75(6) of the GST Act provides that “the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.”

Petitioner argued that notice under Section 61 (Scrutiny of returns) was issued to him. As the notice was uploaded on the portal, petitioner pleaded that he was not aware of the same and could not file a reply. Though a notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued to the petitioner indicating the date of filing reply and date and time of personal hearing, the petitioner did not file a reply. Consequently, order under Section 73(9) of the Act creating a liability of Rs. 85,84,759/- .

Rectification application filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Petitioner approached the High Court on grounds that the order under Section 73(9) was in violation of Section 75(6) of the GST Act as no reasons had been indicated in the order.

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held

“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 held even in absence of any reply by the assessee, the authority is bound to pass orders in compliance of Section 75(6) of GST Act “as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notices while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order.”

Accordingly, the impugned order set aside and the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then decide in accordance with law.

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