Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 April, 2025
2025:UHC:2823-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 123 OF 2025
21st APRIL, 2025
M/s Modine Thermal Systems
Private Limited ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Amar
Pratap Singh, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief
Holder for the State
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned State Counsel.
2) The case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was
visited with a showcause notice dated 18.06.2024 issued
by the 2nd respondent in form GST ASMT-10 seeking the
details and explanation pertaining to the difference in the
2025:UHC:2823-DB
value of outward supplies declared in GSTR 1 and value of
the E-way Bills raised in the financial year 2020-2021.
3) That the petitioner effected a reply to the show-
cause notice dated 18.06.2024 by it's reply dated
17.07.2024; that on 28.11.2024, the 2nd respondent
issued form DRC - 01 (SCN) to show-cause that why a
demand of Rs. 71,57,938/- shall not be confirmed with
interest for difference in value of outward supplies
declared in GST R-1 and the value of E-way Bills raised
during the relevant period. Further, under the said notice,
the respondents scheduled a personal hearing on
20.12.2024 and mentioned the last date for submission of
reply as 28.12.2024. The petitioner sought for
adjournment of the date of personal hearing to a date
after the submission of their reply. The request for
adjournment was premised on the basis of the petitioner
attempting to collate information pertaining to 2021.
4) In our opinion, the approach of the Revenue
Authority in fixing the personal hearing date before the
last date for submission of reply is akin to putting the cart
before the horse. The submissions to be made during the
personal hearing would necessarily be on the basis of the
reply effected. The approach of the Authorities on
2025:UHC:2823-DB
insistence of having a personal hearing prior to submitting
a reply is contrary to the scheme of the Act also.
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 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
2025:UHC:2823-DB
and is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Apex
Court.
8) In the case on hand, the order does not disclose any
justifiable reasons for rejecting the application for request
for adjournment and that apart, as noted above, the
approach itself appears to be incorrect and contrary to the
scheme of Section 75, more particularly, sub-section 4
and 5 of Section 75.
9) In that view of the matter, the order of assessment is
set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent
authority to proceed from the stage of the 28.11.2024
notice.
10) No order as to costs.
The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
________________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 21st April, 2025
Ujjwal
