Ms Yashika Ad Agency vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Yashika AD Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an action by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun. The case mirrors a previous writ petition, M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025), which was decided by the same bench. In the prior case, the petitioner received a show cause notice (GST ASMT-10) on 18.06.2024 regarding discrepancies between outward supplies declared in GSTR 1 and e-way bills for the financial year 2020-2021. A subsequent notice (DRC-01) was issued on 28.11.2024, proposing a demand of Rs. 71,57,938/- with interest. The notice scheduled a personal hearing for 20.12.2024, with a reply submission deadline of 28.12.2024. The petitioner requested an adjournment for the personal hearing, citing the need to collate information for 2021.
Held
The Court held that the Revenue Authority's approach of fixing the personal hearing date before the last date for submission of the petitioner's reply was contrary to the scheme of the Act, specifically Sections 75(4) and 75(5). Section 75(4) mandates granting an opportunity of hearing, and Section 75(5) allows for adjournments for sufficient cause, to be recorded in writing. The Court found that the prior assessment order did not disclose justifiable reasons for rejecting the adjournment request and that the authority's approach was procedurally incorrect. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness under GST law requires that an assessee be given adequate opportunity to file their reply before a personal hearing is conducted, and adjournments should be granted for valid reasons. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to proceed from the stage of the 28.11.2024 notice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Revenue Authority's action of fixing a personal hearing date before the last date for submission of the petitioner's reply is contrary to the scheme of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 73, 74, and 75, and the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Revenue Authority's approach of scheduling the personal hearing before the deadline for submitting a reply was procedurally flawed, akin to 'putting the cart before the horse'. This approach, they contended, was contrary to the scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 75(4) and 75(5), which mandate granting an opportunity of hearing and allowing adjournments for sufficient cause. They relied on the prior judgment of this Court in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited. Revenue's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that the facts of the present case are similar to those in the previously decided writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74, Section 75
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on an order of this Bench dated 21.04.2025, rendered while disposing of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025 “M/s Modine others”. The order reads as under:- “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.
2) The case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was visited with a show cause notice dated 18.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent in form GST ASMT–10 seeking the details and explanation pertaining to the difference in the value of outward supplies declared in GSTR 1 and value of the E–way Bills raised in the financial year 2020-2021. 2025:UHC:6692-DB 2
3) That the petitioner effected a reply to the show cause notice dated 18.06.2024 by it’s reply dated 17.07.2024; that on 28.11.2024, the 2nd respondent issued form DRC – 01 (SCN) to show- cause that why a demand of Rs. 71,57,938/- shall not be confirmed with interest for difference in value of outward supplies declared in GST R-1 and the value of E–way Bills raised during the relevant period. Further, under the said notice, the respondents scheduled a personal hearing on 20.12.2024 and mentioned the last date for submission of reply as 28.12.2024. The petitioner sought for adjournment of the date of personal hearing to a date after the submission of their reply. The request for adjournment was premised on the basis of the petitioner attempting to collate information pertaining to 2021. 4) In our opinion, the approach of the Revenue Authority in fixing the personal hearing date before the last date for submission of reply is akin to putting the cart before the horse. The submissions to be made during the personal hearing would necessarily be on the basis of the reply effected. The approach of the Authorities on insistence of having a personal hearing prior to submitting a reply is contrary to the scheme of the Act also.
5) A conjunctive reading of Section 73, 74 and 75 makes it apparent that the approach adopted by the Authority is contrary to the scheme of the Act. Sub- Section 4 and 5 of Section 75 of the Act reads as under:- “75.(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.”
2025:UHC:6692-DB 3
6) The scheme of the Act enables the assessee to seek for adjournment not in excess of three times and it is pertinent to note that sub-section 5 succeeds sub-section 4, which enables the assessee to seek for a personal hearing. Section 75 relates to the procedural aspect that is required to be followed by the Authorities in the matter of determination of assessment, more particularly, of tax that has escaped assessment.
7) If the statute stipulates a matter to be performed in a particular manner, the same shall be performed in that manner only. Law in this regard is no more res integra and is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court.
8) In the case on hand, the order does not disclose any justifiable reasons for rejecting the application for request for adjournment and that apart, as noted above, the approach itself appears to be incorrect and contrary to the scheme of Section 75, more particularly, sub-section 4 and 5 of Section 75. 9) In that view of the matter, the order of assessment is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to proceed from the stage of the 28.11.2024 notice.
10) No order as to costs.
The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.”
Learned Brief Holder for the State Ms. Puja Banga submits that she has been instructed to state that the facts involved in the instant cases are similar to the facts in the writ petition disposed of by this Court, i.e. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, referred to hereinabove.
The submission is placed on record.
The instant writ petitions are also disposed of in the above terms.
2025:UHC:6692-DB 4
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 2nd January, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1 097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B 8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.01.05 17:22:55 +05'30'
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.