Muzahid Anwar vs. Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Muzahid Anwar, challenged an order dated 13.06.2025 passed 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 issued on 08.05.2025 did not fix a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner, did not dispute this fact. The judgment notes a slight delay by the petitioner in approaching the Court, but overrules this objection due to the violation of natural justice principles.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a 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 under Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This violation of the principles of natural justice vitiates the order under challenge. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 13.06.2025. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The Court overruled the objection regarding the slight delay by the petitioner in approaching the Court, citing the violation of natural justice. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
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 date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice dated 08.05.2025, 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 providing an opportunity for personal hearing, and the failure to fix a date for such hearing in the show-cause notice renders the subsequent order invalid. Respondent's argument: The respondent 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 before the impugned order was passed.
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.