Ms New Dev Bhoomi Agro vs. The Commissioner State Tax Headquarters
Facts
The petitioner, M/s New Dev Bhoomi Agro, challenged an order dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner's primary contention was that the show-cause notice issued on 18.12.2023 did not specify a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondents, the Commissioner, State Tax Headquarters, Dehradun, and another, argued that there was a delay in filing the writ petition, as the impugned order was passed on 23.04.2024. The court noted that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice was not disputed.
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 the principles of natural justice vitiated the order. Consequently, the Court overruled the objection regarding the slight delay in the petitioner approaching the Court. The impugned order dated 23.04.2024 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. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 23.04.2024 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 should preclude the petitioner from seeking relief, despite a violation of principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the non-provision of a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice was a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, and its violation vitiated the impugned order. The respondents contended that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 23.04.2024, and therefore, the petitioner should not be granted relief.
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 23.04.2024 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 18.12.2023, 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 State of
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.