M/S Seema Agencies Having Its Office At Nanakmatta vs. The Commissioner Of State Tax Dehradun
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Seema Agencies, challenged an order dated 22.08.2024 passed by respondent No. 3. This order, issued under Section 73(9) read with Sections 50 and 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act/UKGST Act, demanded a total sum of Rs. 18,65,763, comprising tax of Rs. 10,07,012, interest of Rs. 7,55,341, and penalty of Rs. 1,03,410. The petitioner's grievance stems from a show-cause notice issued on 30.05.2024, which granted a reply deadline of 30.06.2024 but fixed the personal hearing date for 25.06.2024, prior to the reply submission date. The petitioner also contended that the show-cause notice was not physically served but only uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware of its contents.
Held
The Court held that the procedure adopted by the respondent authority was illegal and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that fixing the personal hearing date before the date for submission of the reply to the show-cause notice was contrary to the scheme of the Act. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel could not dispute this fact. Consequently, the assessment order dated 22.08.2024 was quashed. The Court found that the manner of service of the show-cause notice, while raised as a contention, became moot due to the procedural illegality in the hearing schedule. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer to proceed from the stage of the show-cause notice, granting the petitioner an opportunity to file their reply and thereafter fixing a fresh date for personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a personal hearing must be granted after the assessee has had a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and fixing a hearing date prior to the reply submission date vitiates the entire process.
Key Issues
1. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondent authority in fixing the date of personal hearing before the date fixed for submission of reply to the show-cause notice was illegal and in breach of principles of natural justice, as per Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the service of the show-cause notice solely by uploading it on the GST portal, without physical service, rendered the proceedings invalid? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that fixing the personal hearing date before the reply submission date is contrary to the scheme of the Act and violates principles of natural justice. They relied on a Coordinate Bench judgment in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which held that the date of personal hearing cannot precede the date fixed for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice, citing Sections 73, 74, and 75 of the Act. The petitioner also contended that the notice was not effectively served as it was only uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware of it. Respondents' Contentions: The learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that the date of personal hearing was fixed prior to the date for submission of the reply, acknowledging that the personal hearing was not effective and resulted in a breach of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), 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.)
1)
Heard Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Banga, learned counsel for the respondents-State. 2)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 and Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act / UKGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.10,07,012/-, along with interest amount of Rs. 7,55,341/- and penalty of Rs.1,03,410/-, total sum of Rs. 18,65,763, under the provisions of SGST and CGST respectively. 1
UKHC010037912025
2026:UHC:6414-DB 3)
The case of the petitioner is that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.05.2024, whereby time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply by 30.06.2024. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 25.06.2024, i.e., before the date fixed for submission of reply. 4)
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. 5)
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. 6)
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 Thermal relevant extract from the said judgment is as follows: 2
UKHC010037912025
2026:UHC:6414-DB “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.” 7)
Learned counsel for the Revenue Ms. Pooja Banga is not in a position to dispute that since date for 3
UKHC010037912025
2026:UHC:6414-DB personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of reply and, therefore, personal hearing allegedly afforded was not effective and, has resulted in breach of principles of natural justice. 8)
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. 9)
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 23RD JULY, 2026 Negi
4 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C1 8DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.07.29 11:05:39 +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.