Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State Tax
Held
The Court held that the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Nainital, was unsustainable. The reasoning was based on a previous judgment of the same Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 709 of 2026 titled ‘M/s New Shri Rama Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner & another’, which dealt with similar issues of denial of personal hearing. The Court found that the Petitioner was indeed denied a proper personal hearing due to the conflicting dates provided for hearing and reply submission. Although the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on limitation, the Court deemed the initial order to be flawed. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer. The Adjudicating Officer was directed to proceed from the stage of the Show Cause Notice, grant the Petitioner an opportunity to file its reply, fix a fresh date for personal hearing, and pass a fresh order within six weeks.
Facts
M/s ISOFT (Petitioner) challenged an order dated 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Nainital. The Petitioner contended that it was denied a personal hearing as the date fixed for hearing (11.06.2024) was prior to the date for submitting its reply (30.06.2024). The Petitioner had previously filed an appeal against the order dated 28.08.2024, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority due to a delay of over five months in filing the appeal. The Petitioner's writ petition sought to set aside the order dated 28.08.2024.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner was denied a personal hearing in violation of Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, given that the date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the last date for submitting the reply? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the discrepancy in dates, where the hearing date preceded the reply submission date, effectively denied them a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act. They relied on the principle that a fair hearing requires adequate time to present a response. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State regarding the denial of personal hearing. However, the judgment notes that the Petitioner's appeal against the initial order was dismissed on grounds of limitation, implying the Revenue's stance was that the Petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
UKHC010183532026
2026:UHC:9587-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
2 026
WPMB/883/2026
M/s ISOFT --Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, State Tax, Headquarters, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and others. --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Sri Tarun Pande & Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand (through V.C.).
An order, under Section 73 of Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), was passed against petitioner on 28.08.2024. Petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that personal hearing was not given to it in terms of Section 75(4) of the Act.
It is contended that the date of personal hearing, indicated in the notice, was 11.06.2024, while the date of submitting reply was mentioned as 30.06.2024. Thus, it is contended that personal hearing was denied to petitioner, as date
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.