Rudrani Global Autospring Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rudrani Global Autospring Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 3. This order, issued under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 and Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act/UKGST Act, demanded tax of Rs. 24,64,000/- and imposed penalties of Rs. 2,46,400/- each under SGST and CGST provisions. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from a show-cause notice issued on 21.12.2023, which granted a reply deadline of 21.01.2024 but fixed the personal hearing for 29.12.2023, a date prior to the reply submission deadline. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was not served physically but uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware of its contents.
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 the reply to the show-cause notice, was illegal and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court referred to Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST Act, which mandate that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted and that adjournments can be granted for sufficient cause. The Court found that the personal hearing, having been scheduled before the petitioner could even submit their reply, could not have been effective. Consequently, the assessment order could not be sustained. The Court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to proceed from the stage of the show-cause notice, grant the petitioner an opportunity to file their reply, and thereafter fix a date for personal hearing. The Court did not address the issue of service of the show-cause notice via the GST portal, as the primary ground for quashing was the procedural irregularity in hearing dates.
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 the reply to the show-cause notice was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice, as per Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that fixing the personal hearing date before the deadline for submitting a reply was procedurally illegal and violated the principles of natural justice. They relied on a judgment from a Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, 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. The petitioner also contended that the show-cause notice was not properly served, as it was only uploaded to the GST portal, and they were unaware of it. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the Revenue was not in a position to dispute that the personal hearing date was fixed prior to the reply submission date, acknowledging that this resulted in a breach of the principles 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 29.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 and Section 122(2)(a) of the 1
UKHC010029322025
2026:UHC:6290-DB CGST Act / UKGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.24,64,000/-, along with penalty of Rs.2,46,400/- each, under the provisions of SGST and CGST respectively. 3)
The case of the petitioner is that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.12.2023, whereby time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply by 21.01.2024. By the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for 29.12.2023, 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 2026:UHC:6290-DB others, in support of the submission that the date of personal hearing could not be prior to the date fixed for submission of reply to the Show Cause Notice. The 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 3
UKHC010029322025
2026:UHC:6290-DB 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 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 sustain and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing 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=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5 1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18 DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.07.27 17:25:23 +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.