M/S Md Plastech Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was identical to the one decided in Writ Petition No. 123 of 2025 (MB). In view of the consensus between the parties regarding the identical nature of the issues, the Court decided the present writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered on 21.04.2025 in WPMB No. 123 of 2025. The specific findings and reasoning from the prior judgment, which would address the denial of personal hearing and the application of Section 75(4), are not detailed in this order but are implicitly adopted. The operative direction is to decide the present petition in line with the prior judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered with Uttarakhand GST, challenged an order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Rudrapur, under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner's primary contention was that a mandatory personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, was not provided. The petitioner also pointed out that an identical issue had been decided by a coordinate bench in a previous writ petition, M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. The State, through its counsel, conceded that the issue in the present case was identical to the one in the previously decided writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Rudrapur, is vitiated due to the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to provide a personal hearing before passing the order under Section 73 of the GST Act violates the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act. They relied on the judgment of a coordinate bench in Writ Petition No. 123 of 2025 (MB), M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, contending that the present petition should be decided in terms of that judgment due to the identical nature of the issue. Revenue's arguments: The State conceded that the issue involved in the present writ petition was identical to the one decided in Writ Petition No. 123 of 2025 (MB). No specific arguments were recorded for the State beyond this concession.