Kirpal Singh vs. The State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
The petitioner, Kirpal Singh, challenged an order dated January 20, 2026, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2022-23. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice issued on December 19, 2025, failed to specify a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. The respondents, including the State of Uttarakhand and the Revenue Department, argued that the writ petition was filed with a delay. However, the Court noted that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, or at any stage prior to the impugned order, was not disputed.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, or at any stage before the impugned order was passed, constituted a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This violation of the mandatory procedural requirement vitiated the order. The Court further held that, in light of the violation of the principles of natural justice, the objection regarding the slight delay in the petitioner approaching the Court was overruled. Consequently, the order dated January 20, 2026, was quashed. The Court directed respondent no. 5 to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, strictly in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 20, 2026, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the non-fixation of a personal hearing date 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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, mandates the fixation of a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, and its absence renders the subsequent order invalid. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on January 20, 2026.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.01.2026 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial year 2022-23. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 19.12.2025, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under section 75(4) of the Act.
Learned Standing
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.