Ms Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The Commissioner State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Monolith Resorts Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an action by the State Tax authorities. The proceedings stemmed from a show cause notice dated 18.06.2024 (GST ASMT-10) issued by the second respondent, seeking details regarding the difference between outward supplies declared in GSTR 1 and E-way bills raised for the financial year 2020-2021. The petitioner submitted a reply on 17.07.2024. Subsequently, on 28.11.2024, the respondent issued a demand notice (DRC-01) proposing a demand of Rs. 71,57,938/- with interest. This notice scheduled a personal hearing for 20.12.2024, with a last date for reply submission as 28.12.2024. The petitioner requested an adjournment for the personal hearing to collate information for 2021, which was denied.
Held
The Court held that the approach of the Revenue Authority in fixing the personal hearing date before the last date for submission of reply was incorrect and contrary to the scheme of Section 75 of the GST Act, specifically sub-sections (4) and (5). The Court noted that Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing, and Section 75(5) allows for adjournment for sufficient cause, with reasons to be recorded. The judgment indicated that the order did not disclose justifiable reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request for adjournment. The Court found that the statutory procedure, which allows for a reply to be submitted before a personal hearing and permits adjournments, was not followed. 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. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the approach of the Revenue Authority in fixing the personal hearing date before the last date for submission of reply is contrary to the scheme of the GST Act, particularly Section 75(4) and 75(5)? 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'. They contended that submissions during the personal hearing should be based on the submitted reply, and insisting on a hearing prior to the reply submission is contrary to the scheme of the Act. They relied on Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the Act, which provide for an opportunity of hearing and the grant of adjournment for sufficient cause. Respondents' contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that the facts of the instant case are similar to those in a previously decided writ petition (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025), implying that the same outcome should apply.
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 petitioner 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. 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 showcause 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 1
2025:UHC:9284-DB
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. SubSection 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.” 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. 2
2025:UHC:9284-DB
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 case 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 Petition is also disposed of in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 16th October, 2025 Rahul
3
RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66 e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19 2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4 898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2025.10.17 10:41:31 +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.