HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 798 of 2025 (M/B) Shakumbari Engeineering Work ….......Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of the SGST, Commissioner and another …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ms. Pooja Banga, Standing Counsel for the State appeared through video conferencing. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in the instant petition is made to the order dated 27.12.2023, under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the GST Act”), passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the respondent no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act, the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the multiple orders, passed by this Court. 4. Learned State Counsel very fairly submits that in the instant matter, opportunity of personal hearing has not been given and this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, 2 passed on 05.06.2025 in WPMB No.316 of 2025, M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs. Deputy Commissioner and another. 5. In the case of M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that, “we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the settled position in law that no order, affecting civil rights of a citizen, can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and also failed to appreciate the fact that the mandate, and the scheme of the Act itself, has been violated by the concerned authorities.” 6. The matter is covered, therefore, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 05.06.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMB No.316 of 2025, M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs. Deputy Commissioner and another. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider it, in accordance with law. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.09.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd50 4686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8 EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699 , cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.09.26 18:42:07 +05'30'