M/S Yashika Ad Agency vs Commissioner on 2 January, 2026

                                                             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 SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                              02ND JANUARY, 2026
           WRIT PETITION (MB) No. 1135 OF 2025

M/s Yashika AD Agency                                          .....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:-

"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.

2025:UHC:6692-DB

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 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."

2025:UHC:6692-DB

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

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.

2025:UHC:6692-DB

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.

___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 2nd January, 2026 Rathour

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

PRAVINDRA ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1 097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed,

SINGH RATHOUR postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B 8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.01.05 17:22:55 +05'30'