M/S Uttam Traders And Supplairs vs. The Commissioner State Tax
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Uttam Traders and Suppliers, challenged an order dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, concerning the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice dated 21.11.2024 did not fix a date for personal hearing, which they argued is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondents, the Commissioner State Tax and Others, raised an objection regarding the delay in filing the present Writ Petition, as the impugned order was passed on 04.02.2025.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, and the failure to provide such an opportunity at any stage before passing the impugned order, constituted a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This violation of a mandatory procedural requirement, which is essential for adhering to the principles of natural justice, vitiates the order. Consequently, the Court overruled the objection regarding the slight delay in the petitioner approaching the Court, finding that the violation of natural justice principles took precedence. The impugned order dated 04.02.2025 was quashed. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a mandatory procedural requirement, such as providing an opportunity for personal hearing, must be complied with to uphold natural justice, and non-compliance vitiates the consequential order, irrespective of minor delays in approaching the court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, thereby violating Section 75(4) of the Act? 2. Whether the delay in filing the Writ Petition should bar the petitioner from seeking relief, despite the alleged violation of principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the non-fixing of a personal hearing date in the show-cause notice is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act, and its omission vitiates the subsequent order. The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated. The respondents argued that there was a delay in the petitioner approaching the Court, as the impugned order was passed on 04.02.2025.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner- firm and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/Revenue Department.
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2020-21. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 21.11.2024, no date of personal hearing was
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.