M/S Sudama Hardware vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that fixing a date for personal hearing before the date fixed for submitting a reply is akin to putting the cart before the horse. This constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the law. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Act was found unsustainable and was quashed. The Court allowed the writ petition, leaving it open for the Revenue to proceed from the stage of the show-cause notice. The Revenue was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the petitioner to file its reply and thereafter afford an opportunity of hearing. In response to the Revenue's submission, the Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply within two weeks, and the Department to fix a date for personal hearing and decide the matter expeditiously.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sudama Hardware, challenged an order dated 18.12.2023, passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act. The order was issued for wrongly availed Input Tax Credit. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice, also dated 18.12.2023, was procedurally flawed. The notice indicated a date for personal hearing as 29.12.2023, while the deadline for submitting a reply was 17.01.2024. This arrangement, the petitioner argued, made the opportunity for hearing illusory as it preceded the deadline for submitting the response.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show-cause notice dated 18.12.2023, issued under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, is vitiated due to a procedural irregularity in fixing the date for personal hearing before the deadline for submitting the reply? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was flawed because the date fixed for personal hearing (29.12.2023) was prior to the last date for submitting the reply (17.01.2024). This made the opportunity for hearing illusory and violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the dates mentioned in the show-cause notice as evidence. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the procedural flaw. However, during the hearing, the Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner be granted a specified time for submitting its reply and the Department would take a decision on merits within the time directed by the Court.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner firm has assailed the order dated 18.12.2023, passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act for having wrongly availed the Input Tax Credit.
Apart from various contentions on merits, it is submitted that the impugned order stands vitiated as the show-cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner firm on 18.12.2023, indicated date for personal hearing to be 29.12.2023, whereas reply was to be submitted up to 17.01.2024. Thus, the contention is that the hearing sought to be given to the petitioner firm was illusory inasmuch as the date fi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.