M/S Iram Metaldistt U.S Nagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner State Tax
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Iram Metal, challenged an order dated 07.11.2023 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2020-21. They also challenged an order dated 26.03.2025 by the Joint Commissioner, which dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's primary contention was that the show-cause notice dated 01.03.2023 did not specify a date for personal hearing, a mandatory requirement. The respondents, represented by the State Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition, noting the impugned order was passed on 07.11.2023.
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 Act. This violation of the principles of natural justice vitiated the order dated 07.11.2023. Consequently, the Court overruled the objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition. The order dated 07.11.2023 was quashed. The respondents were directed 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 violation of the mandatory procedural requirement of providing an opportunity for personal hearing renders the consequential order invalid, and such procedural lapses may warrant condonation of delay in approaching the court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 07.11.2023, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the absence of a 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 be condoned in light of the violation of principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the failure to fix a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice was a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act, rendering the subsequent order invalid. The respondents contended that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the order under challenge was passed on 07.11.2023.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ Revenue Department.
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 07.11.2023 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2020-21. The order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 26.03.2025 dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is also under challenge. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner
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.