M/S M N Medical Store vs. The Commissioner State Tax Headquaters
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s M N Medical Store, challenged an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by respondent no.3 under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. This order demanded tax of Rs.1,98,086.26 and a penalty of Rs.20,000, totaling Rs.2,18,086.26. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice, issued on 13.12.2023, granted a reply submission deadline of 13.01.2024, but fixed the personal hearing for 02.01.2024, which was prior to the reply deadline. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed the show cause notice was not physically served but uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware of it. The petitioner relied on a Coordinate Bench judgment regarding the procedural impropriety of fixing a hearing before the reply date.
Held
The Court held that the procedure adopted by the respondents, by fixing the date of personal hearing prior to the date fixed for submission of the reply to the show cause notice, was illegal and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute this fact. 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. The petitioner-firm was to be granted an opportunity to file its reply, and thereafter, a fresh date for personal hearing was to be fixed. The Court relied on the principle that if a statute stipulates a matter to be performed in a particular manner, it must be performed in that manner only, a principle well-settled by the Apex Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the fixation of the personal hearing date prior to the date fixed for submission of the reply to the show cause notice renders the proceedings illegal and in breach of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 73 and Section 75 of the CGST/SGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the procedure adopted by the respondents was wholly illegal because the date of personal hearing was fixed before the date granted for submitting the reply to the show cause notice. They further contended that the show cause notice was not served physically but uploaded on the GST portal, of which they were unaware. Reliance was placed on the judgment in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, which held that the date of personal hearing cannot precede the date fixed for submitting the reply. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the State was not in a position to dispute that the personal hearing, having been fixed prior to the reply submission date, was not effective and constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Heard Shri Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner- firm and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by respondent no.3, under Section 73 of the C.G.S.T Act/ SGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.1,98,086.26/-, and penalty of Rs.20,000/-, total sum of Rs.2,18,086.26/-.
The case of the petitioner-firm is that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-firm on 13.12.2023, whereby time was granted to the petitioner-firm to submit its reply by 13.01.2024. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 02.01.2024, i.e., before the date fixed for submission of reply.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner firm is that the date of personal hearing could not have been fixed before the date fixed for submission of reply. The procedure adopted by the respondents was, therefore, wholly illegal.
The further submission is that the show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner-firm by any physical mode, but by 1
UKHC010174022026
2026:UHC:8852-DB uploading the same on the GST portal, and the petitioner-firm could not come to know of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm placed reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.123 of 2025, M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, in support of the submission that the date of personal hearing could not be prior to the date fixed for submission of reply to the show cause notice. The relevant extract from the said judgment is as follows: “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.” (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 subsection 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.”
Learned counsel for the Revenue Ms. Puja Banga is not in 2
UKHC010174022026
2026:UHC:8852-DB a position to dispute that, 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 be sustained 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: 30.09.2026 PP/ 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.