Facts: The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period. The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights. Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

Facts: The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period. The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights. Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

Facts: The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period. The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights. Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

Facts: The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period. The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights. Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

Facts: The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period. The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights. Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

Facts: The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period. The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights. Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.