M/S SINDHI TRADERS vs THE COMMISSIONER STATE TAX
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010161702026
2026:UHC:8266-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 752 OF 2026
TH
15 SEPTEMBER, 2026
M/s Sindhi Traders …… Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, State Tax & others …… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish
Agarwal, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing
Counsel for the State through video
conferencing
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1) Heard Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, and Ms. Puja Banga,
learned counsel for the respondents-State.
2) The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated
03.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 3, under Section 73 of
the C.G.S.T Act / UKGST Act, demanding tax of Rs.
1
UKHC010161702026
2026:UHC:8266-DB
10,68,390.44, along with interest of Rs. 9,47,634/- and
penalty of Rs. 1,06,839.04, total sum of Rs. 21,22,863.48
and, the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Appellate
Authority dismissing the appeal as barred by time.
3) The case of the petitioner-firm is that a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner-firm on
04.05.2024, whereby time was granted to the petitioner-
firm to submit its reply by 04.06.2024. By the same notice,
date of personal hearing was fixed for 20.05.2024, i.e.,
before the date fixed for submission of reply.
4) The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner-firm is that the date of personal hearing could not
have been fixed before the date fixed for submission of
reply. The procedure adopted by the respondents was,
therefore, wholly illegal.
5) The further submission is that the show cause
notice was not served upon the petitioner-firm by any
physical mode, but by uploading the same on the GST
portal, and the petitioner-firm could not come to know of
the same.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm placed
reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition
(M/B) No. 123 of 2025, M/s Modine Thermal Systems
2
UKHC010161702026
2026:UHC:8266-DB
Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, in
support of the submission that the date of personal hearing
could not be prior to the date fixed for submission of reply
to the show cause notice. The relevant extract from the said
judgment is as follows:
“5) A conjunctive reading of Section 73, 74 and 75
makes it apparent that the approach adopted by the
Authority is contrary to the scheme of the Act. SubSection
4 and 5 of Section 75 of the Act reads as under:-
“75.(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be
granted where a request is received in writing
from the person chargeable with tax or penalty,
or where any adverse decision is contemplated
against such person.
(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is
shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant
time to the said person and adjourn the hearing
for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided
that no such adjournment shall be granted for
more than three times to a person during the
proceedings.”
6) The scheme of the Act enables the assessee to
seek for adjournment not in excess of three times and it is
pertinent to note that sub-section 5 succeeds sub-section 4,
which enables the assessee to seek for a personal hearing.
Section 75 relates to the procedural aspect that is required
to be followed by the Authorities in the matter of
determination of assessment, more particularly, of tax that
has escaped assessment.
7) If the statute stipulates a matter to be performed
in a particular manner, the same shall be performed in that
manner only. Law in this regard is no more res integra and
is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court.”
7) Learned counsel for the Revenue Ms. Puja Banga
is not in a position to dispute that, since date for personal
hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of reply,
3
UKHC010161702026
2026:UHC:8266-DB
therefore, personal hearing allegedly afforded was not
effective and, has resulted in breach of principles of natural
justice.
8) Consequently, the order of assessment and the
appellate order cannot be sustained and are, hereby,
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing
Officer to proceed from the stage of show cause notice, and
grant opportunity to the petitioner-firm to file its reply and,
thereafter, fix a date for personal hearing.
9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
10) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
TH
Dt: 15 SEPTEMBER, 2026
Negi
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aa
f116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d57
57, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5
1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18
DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.09.16 10:52:26 +05'30'
HIMANS
HU NEGI
4