Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Panchsheel Enterprises vs Commissioner on 29 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6692-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
29TH JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION (MB) No. 415 OF 2025
M/s Panchsheel Enterprises .....Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax,
Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and another.
...Respondents
With
WRIT PETITION (MB) No. 435 OF 2025
M/s K.G.N Traders .....Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax,
Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish
Agarwal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder
for the State.
JUDGMENT :
(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance
on an order of this Bench dated 21.04.2025, rendered while
disposing of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025 "M/s Modine
Thermal Systems Private Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and
others". The order reads as under:-
2025:UHC:6692-DB
"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 show cause 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 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 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
2025:UHC:6692-DB
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.
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."
2. Learned Brief Holder for the State Ms. Puja Banga
submits that she has been instructed to state that the facts
involved in the instant cases are similar to the facts in the writ
2025:UHC:6692-DB
petition disposed of by this Court, i.e. Writ Petition (M/B) No.
123 of 2025, referred to hereinabove.
3. The submission is placed on record.
4. The instant writ petitions are also disposed of in the
above terms.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
_______________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 29th July, 2025
Rathour
PRAVIND
RATHOUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
RA SINGH
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323
779d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25
946eed, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
RATHOUR
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF9
2A40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F9
06FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH
RATHOUR
Date: 2025.08.01 11:11:51 +05'30'
