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 26.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 3. This order demanded tax of Rs. 4,59,047/-, interest of Rs. 3,92,767/-, and penalty of Rs. 47,824/-, totaling Rs. 8,99,638/-, under the CGST/UKGST Act. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from a show-cause notice issued on 14.12.2023, which granted a reply deadline of 13.01.2024 but fixed the personal hearing for 27.12.2023. The petitioner also contended that the notice was not physically served but only uploaded to the GST portal, and they were unaware of it. The petitioner argued that the procedural irregularities violated principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court held that the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities was contrary to the scheme of the Act and in breach of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, fixing the date of personal hearing before the date granted for submission of the reply to the show-cause notice rendered the hearing ineffective. The Court relied on the petitioner's submission and the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited. The Court found that the revenue's counsel could not dispute this procedural flaw. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. 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 Court did not explicitly decide on the issue of service of notice via the GST portal, as the primary ground of procedural irregularity was sufficient to quash the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities, in fixing the date of personal hearing prior to the date granted for submission of reply to the show-cause notice, is illegal and in breach of principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that the fixation of the personal hearing date before the deadline for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice rendered the hearing ineffective and violated the principles of natural justice. They relied on a judgment from a Coordinate Bench in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which emphasized that statutory procedures must be followed strictly. The petitioner also raised a secondary issue regarding the mode of service of the show-cause notice, stating it was uploaded to the GST portal and not physically served, leading to their lack of knowledge. The respondents, represented by learned counsel Ms. Pooja Banga, conceded that the date of personal hearing being fixed prior to the reply submission date meant the hearing was not effective and constituted a breach 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.)
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 26.04.2024 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.4,59,047/-, along with interest amount of Rs. 3,92,767/- and penalty of Rs.47,824/-, total sum of Rs. 8,99,638/-, under the provisions of SGST and CGST respectively. 1
UKHC010038022025
2026:UHC:6417-DB 3)
The case of the petitioner is that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.12.2023, whereby time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply by 13.01.2024. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 27.12.2023, 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
UKHC010038022025
2026:UHC:6417-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
UKHC010038022025
2026:UHC:6417-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=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aa f116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d575 7, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5 1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18 DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.07.29 11:06:09 +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.