Muzahid Anwar vs. Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Muzahid Anwar, challenged an order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice dated 08.05.2025 did not specify a date for a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The Revenue did not dispute this fact, acknowledging that no personal hearing date was fixed in the show-cause notice or provided at any stage before the impugned order was passed.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, as required by Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, constituted a clear violation of the statutory provision and the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the Revenue did not dispute this factual omission. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 was quashed. The Court allowed the respondent (Assistant Commissioner) to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with the law. The Court also overruled any objection regarding a slight delay by the petitioner in approaching the Court, given the violation of natural justice. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 13.06.2025, 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? Petitioner's Argument: 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. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue did not dispute the petitioner's assertion that no date for personal hearing was fixed in the show-cause notice or provided at any stage. Therefore, the Revenue implicitly conceded to the violation of the statutory provision.
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 13.06.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2021-22. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 08.05.2025, no date for personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that, in the show-cause notice, no date for personal hearing was fixed, nor the same was provided to the petitioner at any stage before passing the impugned order.
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.