Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs The Commissioner on 16 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9284-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
16TH OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 787 OF 2025
M/s Monolith Resorts Private Limited.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, State Tax,
Headquarters and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand.
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/-
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
2025:UHC:9284-DB
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.
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.
2025:UHC:9284-DB
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.
Dt: 16th October, 2025
Rahul
RAHUL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66
e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
PRAJAPATI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19
2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4
898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI
Date: 2025.10.17 10:41:31 +05'30'
