Sushanta Kumar Sana vs. Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sushanta Kumar Sana, challenged an order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Sector-2, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. The order demanded tax of Rs.1,75,648/-, interest of Rs.1,38,074/-, and penalty of Rs.20,000/-, totaling Rs.3,33,722/-. The petitioner contended that a show-cause notice was issued on 04.10.2024, granting time to reply by 04.11.2024, but fixing the personal hearing for 28.10.2024, which was prior to the reply submission date. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed the show-cause notice was not physically served but only uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware of it.
Held
The Court held that the procedure adopted by the respondent authority, in fixing the date for personal hearing prior to the date granted for submission of the reply to the show-cause notice, was a procedural illegality and a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the submission of the revenue's counsel, who did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the assessment order could not be sustained and was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer to proceed from the stage of the show-cause notice. The petitioner was to be granted an opportunity to file their reply, and thereafter, a fresh date for personal hearing was to be fixed. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the fixation of the date for personal hearing prior to the date granted for submission of reply to the show-cause notice is a procedural illegality and a breach of the principles of natural justice, under Section 73 and Section 75 of the CGST Act/UKGST Act? The petitioner argued that the procedure adopted by the respondent authority was illegal because the personal hearing was scheduled before the deadline for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice. This, according to the petitioner, rendered the personal hearing ineffective and violated natural justice. The petitioner relied on a judgment from a Coordinate Bench in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which held that the scheme of the Act requires adherence to a specific procedural manner. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute this contention, acknowledging that the prior fixation of the personal hearing date meant the hearing afforded was not effective and constituted a breach of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50, Section 122(2)(a), Section 75
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (PER : SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
Heard Sri Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner (through V.C.) and Ms. Pooja Banga, learned counsel for the respondents-State.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the respondent under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 and Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act / UKGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.1,75,648/-, along with interest amount of Rs. 1,38,074/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, total sum of Rs. 3,33,722/-, under the provisions of SGST and CGST respectively.
The case of the petitioner is that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.10.2024, whereby time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply by 04.11.2024. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 28.10.2024, i.e., before the date fixed for submission of reply.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
UKHC010169242026
2026:UHC:8637-DB 2
The further submission is that the show-cause notice was not served upon the petitioner by any physical mode but by uploading the same on the GST portal and petitioner could not come to know of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, M/s Modine 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 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.”
Learned counsel for the Revenue Ms. Pooja Banga is not in a position to dispute that since date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the UKHC010169242026
2026:UHC:8637-DB 3
date of submission of reply and, 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 Adjudicating Officer to proceed from the stage of Show Cause Notice and grant opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply and, thereafter, fix a date for personal hearing.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
_____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 24th September, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4 E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.09.25 15:19:32 +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.