Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Commissioner on 4 November, 2025
2025:UHC:9742-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.625 of 2025
4th November, 2025
M/s Hollow Block Bricks ----Petitioner
versus
Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax
Commissionerate, Dehradun & Anr. ----Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Sri G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 :
"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 showcause that why a demand of Rs. 71,57,938/-
2025:UHC:9742-DB
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. 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.
2025:UHC:9742-DB
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 case are similar to the facts
in the writ 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 Petition is also disposed of in
the above terms.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions,
if any pending, shall stand closed.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 04.11.2025
Rajni
