M/S Panchsheel Enterprises vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Panchsheel Enterprises and M/s K.G.N Traders, filed writ petitions before the Uttarakhand High Court. They challenged actions taken by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun. The petitions are identical in facts to a previous writ petition, (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, titled "M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and others," which was disposed of by the same bench on April 21, 2025. The State's counsel confirmed that the facts in the present cases are similar to the previously decided matter.
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 the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 75(4) and 75(5). The Court reasoned that submissions made during a personal hearing must necessarily be based on the reply submitted by the assessee. The statute mandates that an opportunity of hearing be granted, and adjournments can be sought for sufficient cause. The prior judgment noted that the order did not disclose justifiable reasons for rejecting the adjournment request and that the authority's approach was procedurally flawed. Consequently, the assessment order in the prior case was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to proceed from the stage of the show cause notice. The present writ petitions were disposed of in terms of this prior order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the approach of the Revenue Authority in fixing a personal hearing date before the last date for submission of reply is contrary to the scheme of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 73, 74, and 75. Petitioner's argument (as per the relied-upon prior judgment): The petitioner argued that the Revenue Authority's procedure of scheduling a personal hearing before the deadline for submitting a reply was incorrect and akin to 'putting the cart before the horse.' They contended that submissions during a personal hearing should be based on a submitted reply, and the authority's insistence on a hearing prior to the reply submission was contrary to the Act's scheme. They also argued that the rejection of their adjournment request lacked justifiable reasons. Revenue/State's argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that the facts involved in the instant cases are similar to the facts in the writ petition previously disposed of by the Court.
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:-
2025:UHC:6692-DB 2
“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 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
2025:UHC:6692-DB 3
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.
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
2025:UHC:6692-DB 4
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.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 29th July, 2025 Rathour PRAVIND RA SINGH RATHOUR RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323 779d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25 946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF9 2A40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F9 06FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.08.01 11:11:51 +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.