2025:UHC:8908-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 824 of 2025 7th October, 2025 Dream Realinfra Private Limited …….Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner ……Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order in Original and FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD0508230102700 and ZD0508230106OOZ dated 17.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure- 1); as the same has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice; (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice and FORM GST DRC-01 bearing Reference No.ZD050323015824Q dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-2); (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent from taking any coercive steps in regard to the Order dated 17.08.2023 2025:UHC:8908-DB 2 (Annexure-1); (d) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to re-decide the matter after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and after considering all the submissions and documents; (e) Issue any other writ, order or direction; and/or allow any other consequential relief as expedient in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”); no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that show cause notices were duly issued to the petitioner, but he failed to respond to the same. Therefore, there was no occasion to afford him any opportunity of personal hearing. 5. The issue regarding the mandatory nature of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act has already been discussed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner, WPMB No. 316 of 2025, decided on 05.06.2025. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, the Court observed as under: “4. The scheme of the Act mandates that, in either of the 2025:UHC:8908-DB 3 two circumstances, a personal hearing is required to be given to the party, who either makes a written request, or against whom the authorities contemplate an adverse order. In the case on hand, the latter part is applicable, and the Assessing Authority ought to have complied with the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act.” 6. In the said case, the Coordinate Bench, while interpreting the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act, set aside the impugned order, which were passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and remitted the matter back to the authority for reconsideration in accordance with law. 7. Learned State counsel would fairly concede that the issue relating to grant of personal hearing stands concluded by the aforesaid judgment of the Coordinate Bench in M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers (supra). 8. Since, the matter is covered, the instant petition is decided in term of the judgment dated 05.06.2025 passed in WPMB No. 316 of 2025, M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.10.2025 07.10.2025 Mamta