Atul Kumar vs. The Superintendent
Facts
The petitioner, Atul Kumar, challenged an order-in-original dated 09.03.2026, passed under Section 74 of the Central GST Act, 2017, and a show cause notice dated 11.11.2025, issued by the Superintendent of Central GST. The petitioner's primary contention was that the show cause notice lacked a date for personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The respondent revenue authority argued that while the initial show cause notice did not specify a hearing date, three dates (13.01.2026, 22.01.2026, and 05.02.2026) were subsequently fixed for personal hearing. The petitioner failed to appear on these dates, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed. While acknowledging that the initial show cause notice did not specify a date for personal hearing, the Court noted that the impugned order explicitly recorded that three dates for personal hearing were fixed: 13.01.2026, 22.01.2026, and 05.02.2026. The Court observed that the petitioner had not rebutted this assertion in their writ petition. Therefore, even if the initial notice was deficient, the subsequent fixing of multiple hearing dates and the petitioner's failure to appear on those dates meant that the final order was passed after providing opportunities for hearing. The Court found no breach of natural justice in this context. No other points were pressed by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order-in-original dated 09.03.2026, passed under Section 74 of the Central GST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for breach of principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing date in the initial show cause notice dated 11.11.2025? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the absence of a date for personal hearing in the show cause notice rendered the subsequent order invalid, as it violated the fundamental principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the impugned order and have the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity for a hearing. Respondent's argument: The respondent argued that despite the initial show cause notice not mentioning a specific hearing date, three opportunities for personal hearing were provided on 13.01.2026, 22.01.2026, and 05.02.2026. The petitioner's failure to avail these opportunities compelled the department to pass an ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order-in-original dated 09.03.2026, passed under Section 74 of the Central GST Act, 2017 as well as show cause notice dated 11.11.2025. 2. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the show cause notice no date of personal hearing was mentioned, and consequently, the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice. It is accordingly submitted that the imp
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.