M/S Poorchand Singh vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand GST
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Poorchand Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.03.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice dated 30.12.2023, issued by the respondent authority, did not fix a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the State, raised an objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition, as the impugned order was passed on 05.03.2024.
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 the mandatory requirement of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the objection raised by the revenue regarding the delay in filing the writ petition was overruled. The Court quashed the order dated 05.03.2024 and directed the respondent authority to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a failure to provide a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) vitiates the order passed under Section 73, irrespective of the delay in approaching the court, due to the violation of natural justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 05.03.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the absence of a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice dated 30.12.2023, thereby violating Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the failure to fix a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice constitutes a violation of a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, rendering the subsequent order invalid. They relied on the principle of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The revenue department argued that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 05.03.2024.
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-firm has assailed the order dated 05.03.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial year 2018-19. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 30.12.2023, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Learned Standing Counsel for the
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.