Deepak vs. State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Deepak, challenged an order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 and Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act/UKGST Act. This order demanded a total sum of Rs. 4,92,954/-, comprising tax of Rs. 2,32,526/-, interest of Rs. 2,37,176/-, and penalty of Rs. 23,252/-. The petitioner also challenged the appellate order dated 18.05.2026. The petitioner's primary contention was that the show-cause notice issued on 29.09.2023 fixed the date for personal hearing on 19.10.2023, which was prior to the deadline for submitting a reply, set for 27.10.2023. The petitioner further argued that the show-cause notice was not served physically but uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware of it.
Held
The Court held that the procedure adopted by the respondents in fixing the date of personal hearing prior to the date fixed for submission of reply to the show-cause notice was illegal and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue, who conceded that the personal hearing was not effective due to this procedural flaw. The Court also referred to the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited, which supported the view that the statutory procedure must be followed. Consequently, the Court quashed the order-in-original and the appellate order. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer to proceed from the stage of the show-cause notice, grant the petitioner an opportunity to file their reply, and thereafter fix a fresh date for personal hearing. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondents, in fixing the date of personal hearing prior to the date fixed for submission of reply to the show-cause notice, is illegal and in breach of the principles of natural justice, turning on Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that fixing the personal hearing before the deadline for submitting a reply is procedurally illegal. They 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 approach adopted by the Authority was contrary to the scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 73, 74, and 75, emphasizing that if a statute stipulates a matter to be performed in a particular manner, it must be performed accordingly. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that the date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of reply, admitting that the personal hearing was not effective and resulted in a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50, Section 122(2)(a), Section 75(4), Section 75(5)
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 19.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 and Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act / UKGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.2,32,526/-, along with interest amount of Rs. 2,37,176/- and penalty of Rs. 23,252/-, total sum of Rs. 4,92,954/-, under the provisions of SGST and CGST respectively and the appellate order dated 18.05.2026. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.09.2023, whereby time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply by 27.10.2023. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 19.10.2023, 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.
UKHC010169252026
2026:UHC:8636-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 UKHC010169252026
2026:UHC:8636-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-in-original and the appellate order cannot be sustained and are 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=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3a eb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6 179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.09.25 15:18:06 +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.