M/S Abdulla Trading Company vs. The Commissioner State Tax
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Abdulla Trading Company, challenged an order dated 29.07.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice issued on 20.05.2024 did not fix a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The Revenue Department argued that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 29.07.2024. The Court noted that the absence of a fixed personal hearing date in the show-cause notice or at any stage before the order was undisputed.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, or its provision at any stage prior to the passing of the impugned order, constitutes a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This violation vitiates the order. The Court further held that since principles of natural justice were violated, the objection regarding the slight delay in the petitioner approaching the Court is overruled. Consequently, the order dated 29.07.2024 was quashed. The Court directed the respondent 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 statute vitiates the consequential order, and such a procedural lapse outweighs a minor delay in filing a writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 29.07.2024 passed under Section 73 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 warrants dismissal of the petition, despite the violation of principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the failure to provide a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, renders the impugned order invalid. The Revenue Department contended that the writ petition suffers from a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 29.07.2024, and the petition was filed subsequently.
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 Mr. Ashish Agarwal and Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner-company and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ Revenue Department.
The petitioner-company has assailed the order dated 29.07.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2019-20. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-company is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner- company dated 20.05.2024, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. 3.
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.