Manju vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that in the interest of justice, the order-in-original dated 17.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 07.07.2025 should be set aside. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing the entire amount demanded by the order dated 17.04.2024 within four weeks. Upon deposit, the petitioner is to inform the respondent, who will then fix a date for hearing and decide the matter afresh. The deposited amount will be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. The Court's reasoning was primarily based on the petitioner's readiness to deposit the disputed amount and her specific grievance regarding the breach of natural justice due to the lack of a personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural irregularity, such as the denial of a personal hearing, can warrant setting aside an order, especially when coupled with the petitioner's willingness to comply with the financial demand and seek a fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Manju, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated 17.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand State GST Act, an order in appeal dated 07.07.2025, an auction notice dated 31.10.2025, a demand notice dated 10.12.2025, and a citation to appear dated 08.01.2026. The petitioner's primary contention was that the Department failed to provide a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. The Revenue argued that the petitioner was given the option for a personal hearing in the show cause notice and did not exercise it. Furthermore, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed for being time-barred. During the proceedings, the petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the entire amount demanded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order-in-original dated 17.04.2024 is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the mandate of Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand State GST Act, by not providing an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Department violated Section 75(4) of the Act by not fixing any date for hearing, thereby denying her a personal hearing. This procedural lapse vitiated the order-in-original. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the petitioner was offered the option to be heard personally in the show cause notice. Since the petitioner did not exercise this option, the order was passed without fixing a specific hearing date. The Revenue also pointed out that the petitioner's appeal against the order-in-original was dismissed on the grounds of limitation.