Ms Shivtara Developers vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivtara Developers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.07.2025, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order imposed a tax liability of Rs. 12,93,408/-, interest of Rs. 2,88,943.80/-, and penalty of Rs. 12,93,408/-. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. They also pointed out that a similar writ petition filed by them, challenging another order under Section 74 for a different period, had already been decided and quashed by the Court. The Revenue argued that the petitioner had not opted for a personal hearing, hence it was not provided.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 17.07.2025, passed under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is quashed. The Court reasoned that Section 75(4) of the Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing or where any adverse decision is contemplated. The Court reiterated its previous stance, supported by decisions of various High Courts, that even if an assessee has not opted for a personal hearing, the revenue is obligated to afford a personal hearing when proposing to pass an adverse order. This principle was applied in the petitioner's previous writ petition, which was decided on similar grounds. The Department is at liberty to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The operative direction is to quash the impugned order and permit the Department to pass a fresh order after affording a hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 17.07.2025, passed under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as stipulated in Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing. They relied on a previous decision of the Court in a similar writ petition filed by them, where an order under Section 74 was quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the petitioner had not opted for a personal hearing, and therefore, it was not provided. They did not cite any specific provisions or precedents in support of their argument.