Ravindra Singh Deopa vs. The Commissioner State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Ravindra Singh Deopa, challenged an order dated January 2, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Pithoragarh Sector – 1, Haldwani, Uttarakhand. This order, passed under Section 74 of the UKSGST, 2017, imposed a tax liability of Rs. 22,52,698/- on the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was issued in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. The Revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, could not demonstrate that any such opportunity was granted.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated January 2, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Pithoragarh Sector – 1, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, was in breach of Section 75(4) of the UKSGST, 2017. The Court found the petitioner's contention to be sustainable as the Revenue could not demonstrate that any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court granted liberty to the Department to pass a fresh order after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that an order imposing tax liability under Section 74 of the UKSGST Act, 2017, is vitiated if passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 2, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Pithoragarh Sector – 1, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, imposing a tax liability of Rs. 22,52,698/- upon the petitioner, is liable to be quashed for being in breach of Section 75(4) of the UKSGST, 2017, by reason of non-grant of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, thus violating the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the UKSGST Act, 2017. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its learned Standing Counsel, was unable to show that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.