Priya Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer
Held
The Court held that the order dated 13.11.2025, passed by the Proper Officer, was indeed issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission, which was supported by a previous High Court ruling in a similar case. Since the Revenue did not dispute this factual assertion, the Court proceeded to quash the impugned order. The Court directed the respondent (State Tax Officer) to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, Priya Agarwal, sought to quash an order dated 13.11.2025 (Form DRC-07) and a show-cause notice dated 27.08.2025 (Form DRC-01), both issued by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, a requirement stipulated under Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. The petitioner supported this argument by referencing a previous order of the High Court in a similar case, M/s R.A. Traders vs. The Commissioner, State Tax & another. The Revenue did not contest the factual assertion regarding the lack of a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 13.11.2025, passed by the Proper Officer, is liable to be quashed for violation of Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, by not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order dated 13.11.2025 was passed in contravention of Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, which mandates providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Reliance was placed on the High Court's order in M/s R.A. Traders vs. The Commissioner, State Tax & another, which dealt with identical facts and circumstances. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue did not dispute the factual position presented by the petitioner regarding the absence of a personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
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 is seeking quashing of order dated 13.11.2025 along with Form DRC-07, bearing Reference No.ZD051125006970R as well as the show-cause notice along with Form DRC-01, bearing Reference No.ZD050825017507C, dated 27.08.2025. 3. The short submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that order dated 13.11.2025 has been passed by the Proper Officer without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. In support of his submission, he places reliance on an order of this Court dated 17.03.2026, in
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.