M/S SHRI SHYAM ENGINEERS SOLUTION vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010159692026

2026:UHC:8157-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
TH
10 SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 742 OF 2026
M/s Shri Shyam Engineers Solution …...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanshi Mishra, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing
Counsel through video conferencing .
JUDGMENT : ( per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. On oral request made by learned counsel for
the petitioner, she is permitted to implead the Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-01, Rudrapur,
Uttarakhand as party respondent no.2 to the present
writ petition.

3. The petitioner- firm has assailed the order
dated 20.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2, under
Section 73(9) of the CGST/ UKGST Act, demanding tax
of Rs.1,24,497/- along with interest of Rs.82,209/- and
penalty of Rs.20,000/-, total sum of Rs.2,26,706/-.

4. The case of the petitioner firm is that a show
1

UKHC010159692026

2026:UHC:8157-DB

cause notice was issued to the petitioner firm on
13.08.2025, whereby time was granted to the
petitioner- firm to submit its reply by 13.09.2025. By
the same notice, date of personal hearing was fixed for
21.08.2025, i.e. before the date fixed for submission of
reply.

5. 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.

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 Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttarakhand & 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. Sub-section 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
2

UKHC010159692026

2026:UHC:8157-DB

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 State Counsel is not in a position to
dispute that, since date of personal hearing was fixed
prior to the date of submission of reply, therefore,
personal hearing allegedly afforded was not effective
and, has resulted in breach of principles of natural
justice.

8. Consequently, the order of assessment
cannot be sustained and is, 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.
3

UKHC010159692026

2026:UHC:8157-DB


10. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.


MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.


SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
th
Dated: 10 September, 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT
KUMAR
Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00e
c2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A0 55CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2026.09.11 12:46:37 +05'30'
4