M/S Chaturvedi Agencies vs. Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, a taxable person registered with Uttarakhand GST, challenged an order dated 14.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur, and a subsequent rectification order dated 19.07.2025. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, which enhanced the total demand to Rs. 11,67,386.00, alleging they were passed in disregard of natural justice principles. The petitioner also sought a direction for the respondent to re-decide the matter after providing a personal hearing and considering all submissions and documents. The impugned orders were passed under Sections 161, 73, 50, and 122 of the Act.
Held
The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an identical issue had been decided by a coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025 and that the present petition deserved to be decided in terms of that judgment. The learned State Counsel fairly submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is identical and therefore, the writ petition can be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025. In view of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025. The specific findings and reasoning from the referred judgment were not detailed in this order, but the operative direction was to decide the present petition based on that precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.12.2024 and the rectification order dated 19.07.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur, are liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, under Section 161 read with Sections 73, 50, and 122 of the Act? The petitioner argued that the orders were passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and sought a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and considering all submissions and documents. The revenue (State) fairly submitted that the issue involved is identical to a previously decided case by a coordinate bench and that the writ petition can be decided in terms of that judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 161, Section 73, Section 50, Section 122
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:11561-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMB 1075/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Banga, Brief Holder, for the State.
(2) Petitioner is a taxable person registered with Uttarakhand GST. He is challenging the order dated 14.12.2024, passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur and also the rectification order dated 19.7.2025. Reliefs sought in the writ petition are as under:
“a. issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Impugned Order in Original dated 14/12/2023 (Annexure No. 1) as well as the subsequent Rectification Order issued in Form DRC-08 dated 19/07/2025 (Annexure No. 2) passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 161 read with Section 73, 50, and 122 of the Act, whereby the total demand has been enhanced to Rs. 11,67,386.00/-, as the same have been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice;
b. issue a writ of certiorari or a wr
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.