Ms Aryan Tradingh vs. The Commissioner State Tax
Facts
M/s Aryan Trading (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2020-21. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 did not fix a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondents, the Commissioner, State Tax and another, argued that there was a delay in filing the writ petition as the impugned order was passed on 17.02.2025. 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 dated 17.02.2025. Consequently, the Court overruled the respondents' objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition. The Court quashed the order dated 17.02.2025 and directed the respondent no. 2 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 mandatory personal hearing as stipulated by Section 75(4) renders the consequential order void.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 17.02.2025 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 the show-cause notice issued on 18.11.2024 failed to fix a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This omission, according to the petitioner, renders the subsequent order passed by the authority invalid. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 17.02.2025. They did not dispute the petitioner's assertion regarding the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice.
Sections Cited
Section 73, 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 17.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2020-21. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 18.11.2024, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Ac
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.