Nirmal Singh Chauhan vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be decided in terms of the judgment dated 21.04.2025 rendered in WPMB No. 123 of 2025. This implies that the Court found merit in the petitioners' contention regarding the non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, which mandates a personal hearing. The reasoning would be that a failure to provide a personal hearing, when required by law, vitiates the order passed. The ratio decidendi would be that any order passed in contravention of a mandatory procedural requirement like the right to a personal hearing is liable to be set aside or remanded. The operative direction was to decide the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned earlier judgment, which, as stated by the petitioner, resulted in a remand. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners challenged an order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur, Uttarakhand, under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The primary ground for challenge was the alleged denial of a personal hearing, despite Section 75(4) of the Act mandating such an opportunity when an adverse decision is contemplated or a written request is received. The petitioners relied on a previous judgment by a coordinate bench of the High Court in WPMB No. 123 of 2025, which dealt with an identical issue and resulted in a remand. The respondents' counsel acknowledged that the issue was covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur, Uttarakhand, under Section 73(9) of the Uttarakhand GST Act is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing a personal hearing as stipulated in Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner argued that Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the assessee, especially when an adverse decision is contemplated. They contended that this mandatory provision was violated by the impugned order. The petitioners further submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court in WPMB No. 123 of 2025 had dealt with an identical issue and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration from the stage of notice, and therefore, this petition should be decided similarly. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by a previous judgment of this Court dated 21.04.2025, passed in WPMB No. 123 of 2025.