M/S 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. 24,18,516/-, along with interest of Rs. 9,76,815.40/-, and an equivalent amount as penalty. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner also pointed out that a similar writ petition filed by them concerning a different financial year and another order under Section 74 had already been decided by the Court, resulting in the quashing of that order. The Revenue argued that the petitioner had not opted for a personal hearing, and therefore, 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 even if an assessee has not opted for a personal hearing, it is obligatory for the revenue to afford a personal hearing when an adverse order is contemplated. This principle was reiterated by the Court in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner concerning a similar issue. The Court found that the mandatory requirement of Section 75(4) of the Act was not met. The operative direction was that it shall be open to the Department to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. They relied on a previous decision of the High Court in a similar writ petition filed by them (Writ Petition (M/B) No.702 of 2026) where an order under Section 74 was quashed on similar grounds. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the petitioner had not opted for a personal hearing, and consequently, one was not provided. The Revenue did not cite any specific provision or precedent in support of its argument.