U.T. Electronics PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner State Taxes And Excise Parwanoo And Another
Held
The Court held that the dispute regarding the service of the show cause notice, which is central to the petitioner's claim of limitation, raises disputed questions of fact. Such disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the limitation issue. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days from the date of the order, which would be considered filed within the period of limitation and decided on merits by the Appellate Authority. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding limitation and service of notice.
Facts
The petitioner, U.T. Electronics Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an order passed under Section 73 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act, 2017, on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on April 29, 2021, effective March 30, 2021. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated September 28, 2023, was issued. The petitioner claimed this notice was never served and they only became aware of it when their bank account was attached. The respondents contended that the notice was duly uploaded on the GST portal, emailed, and sent via SMS to the petitioner's registered contact details.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act, 2017, is barred by limitation, considering the petitioner's claim of non-service of the show cause notice? The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was never served, and the impugned order, passed on the basis of this unserved notice, is therefore bad in law and barred by limitation. They relied on the fact that they only became aware of the proceedings when their bank account was attached. The respondents argued that the show cause notice was duly served through multiple modes as per Section 169 of the Act, including upload on the GST portal, email, and SMS, thus refuting the claim of non-service and limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 2026:HHC:40147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16821 of 2025 Date of decision: 21.09.2026 U.T. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner
Versus Assistant Commissioner and another …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- “a). That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned orders (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned respondents under Section 73 of the H.P. GST being hopelessly barred by limitation.”
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the documen
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.