M/S Shivtara Developers vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shivtara Developers, challenged an order passed under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by respondent no. 3. This order imposed a tax liability of ₹12,93,408/-, interest of ₹2,88,943.80, and a penalty equivalent to 100% of the alleged tax liability. The petitioner contended that they were not afforded a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner also cited a prior decision by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in a similar case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another, arguing for a similar outcome.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition deserved to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that a personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the Act, was not granted. The State counsel, while opposing the petitioner's submissions, failed to demonstrate any factual distinction between the present case and the cited precedent. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to follow the earlier judgment. The operative direction was to decide the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act? The petitioner argued that Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated or requested in writing. They asserted that this opportunity was denied, rendering the impugned order illegal. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another, which dealt with an identical issue. The revenue, represented by the State counsel, opposed the petitioner's submission but could not distinguish the facts of the present case from the precedent cited.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, “Act”) by respondent no.3, whereby tax liability of ₹12,93,408/- plus interest of ₹2,88,943.80 and penalty equivalent to 100% of the alleged tax liability was imposed upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the Act. Section 75(4) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- “An opportunity of hearing shall be granted
UKHC010151872026
2026:UHC:8104-DB 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.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an identical issue was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Commissioner of the SGST and Another, therefore, this Writ Petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition Commissioner of the SGST and Another
Ms. Pooja Banga, learned State counsel for the respondents, although opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, she could not demonstrate how the facts of the present case are different from the one decided in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s 07.08.2026, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Shiv/
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.