Judgment
UKHC010161812026
2026:UHC:8271-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 755 OF 2026
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
M/s Sindhi Traders
…… Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, State Tax & another …… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner :
Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State through video conferencing
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
Heard Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, and Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel for the respondents-State.
2)
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, under Section 73 of the C.G.S.T Act / UKGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.
1
UKHC010161812026
2026:UHC:8271-DB 1,87,258.05, along with penalty of Rs. 43,734/-, total sum of Rs. 2,30,992.05.
3)
The case of the petitioner-firm is that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-firm on 16.09.2025, whereby time was granted to the petitioner- firm to submit its reply by 15.10.2025. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 29.09.2025, i.e., before the date fixed for submission of reply.
4)
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that the date of personal hearing could not have been fixed before the date fixed for submission of reply. The procedure adopted by the respondents was, therefore, wholly illegal.
5)
The further submission is that the show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner-firm by any physical mode, but by uploading the same on the GST portal, and the petitioner-firm could not come to know of the same.
6)
Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm placed reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, in support of the submission that the date of personal hearing 2
UKHC010161812026
2026:UHC:8271-DB could not be prior to the date fixed for submission of reply to the show cause notice. The relevant extract from the said judgment is as follows:
“5) A conjunctive reading of Section 73, 74 and 75 makes it apparent that the approach adopted by the Authority is contrary to the scheme of the Act. SubSection 4 and 5 of Section 75 of the Act reads as under:- “75.(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.” 6) The scheme of the Act enables the assessee to seek for adjournment not in excess of three times and it is pertinent to note that sub-section 5 succeeds sub-section 4, which enables the assessee to seek for a personal hearing.
Section 75 relates to the procedural aspect that is required to be followed by the Authorities in the matter of determination of assessment, more particularly, of tax that has escaped assessment.
7) If the statute stipulates a matter to be performed in a particular manner, the same shall be performed in that manner only. Law in this regard is no more res integra and is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court.”
7)
Learned counsel for the Revenue Ms. Puja Banga is not in a position to dispute that, since date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of reply, therefore, personal hearing allegedly afforded was not 3
UKHC010161812026
2026:UHC:8271-DB effective and, has resulted in breach of principles of natural justice.
8)
Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Proper Officer to proceed from the stage of show cause notice, grant opportunity to the petitioner-firm to file its reply and, thereafter, fix a date for personal hearing.
9)
Meanwhile, if any amount has already been deposited by the petitioner-firm on basis of notice issued under Section 73, the same shall remain in deposit until final order is passed and shall thereafter abide by the final order.
10) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 Negi
4 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf 116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.09.17 10:41:02 +05'30'