M/S Harak Singh Sole Proprietorship vs. Commissioner Department Of State Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Harak Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 4, which directed payment of CGST and SGST totaling Rs. 1,27,163/- each, along with penalties of Rs. 12,716/- each and applicable interest. This demand was based on an alleged difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The petitioner also challenged an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2, dismissing their appeal (Appeal No. 228/2025) for the year 2019-20. The petition sought quashing of the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2024, a fresh consideration of their case, a restraint on coercive steps, and de-freezing of their bank account.
Held
The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer was not in conformity with the prescribed procedure, as the date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of the reply. This resulted in a breach of the principles of natural justice, rendering the personal hearing ineffective. Consequently, the assessment order could not be sustained and was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to proceed from the stage of the show-cause notice, grant the petitioner an opportunity to file its reply, and thereafter fix a fresh date for personal hearing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the alleged difference in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B.
Key Issues
1. Whether the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer, by fixing the date of personal hearing before the last date for submission of the reply to the show-cause notice, was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the assessment order unsustainable? The petitioner argued that the procedure was illegal, as the personal hearing was scheduled before the deadline for submitting their reply to the show-cause notice. They relied on this Court's order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 166/2026, M/s Abuturrab Agencies v. The Commissioner, State Tax and another. The Revenue conceded that since the personal hearing date was fixed 21 days prior to the last date for filing the reply, the hearing offered was illusory and not in conformity with the prescribed procedure. However, the Revenue noted that the petitioner's appeal had also been dismissed. The judgment clarifies that the appeal was dismissed not on merits but solely on the ground of limitation.
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.)
The present writ petition has been filed, praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2024 along with summary of order vide FORM GST DRC-07 (Annexure No.3) passed by respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner was directed to make the payment of tax of Rs.1,27,163/- towards CGST and Rs.1,27,163/- towards SGST including penalty of Rs.12,716/- towards CGST and Rs.12,716/- towards SGST and applicable interest till the date of deposit, for the alleged difference in GSTR- 2A & GSTR-3B. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by Respondent no.2 (Annexure No.6) whereby the Appeal No.228/2025, year 2019-20, M/s Harak Singh, Pithoragarh vs. Commissioner, State Tax Department, Uttarakhand filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
1
UKHC010115682026
2026:UHC:7249-DB
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the show-cause notice along with GST DRC-01 dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure No.2) for the alleged difference in GSTR-2A & GSTR-3B. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner afresh. (v) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restrain from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 issued by Respondent no.4 under section 73 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017. (vi) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to instruct the Bank namely Bank of India, Branch Pithoragarh to de-freeze the saving bank account bearing account number 689510110000949 of petitioner.”
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that date of personal hearing was fixed before the last date of submission of the reply to the show cause notice, and, therefore, the procedure adopted was wholly illegal. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on an order dated 17.03.2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No.166/2026 “M/s Abuturrab Agencies v. The Commissioner, State Tax and another”.
Learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly concedes that, since date for personal hearing was fixed 21 days prior to the last date fixed for filing of the reply, the hearing presumably offered was illusory, and not in conformity with the procedure prescribed.
2
UKHC010115682026
2026:UHC:7249-DB
She, however, contends that the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.
Indisputably, the order of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal, is not on merits, but only on the ground of limitation.
Since date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of reply, therefore personal hearing allegedly afforded was not effective and, has resulted in breach of principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the order of assessment cannot sustain and is, hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to proceed from the stage of show cause notice, and grant opportunity to the petitioner-firm to file its reply and, thereafter, fix a date for personal hearing.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 14.08.2026 Rajni
3
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.