Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2218 (UTT)

M/S SHRI BALAJI AGENCIES v. COMMISSIONER

WPMB/138/2026 · 2026-04-09

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2581-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.138 of 2026 April 9, 2026 M/s Shri Balaji Agencies ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun & Anr. ----Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Mr. Tarun Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents through V.C. JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 16.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2019-20. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 20.05.2024, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. 3. Learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ Revenue Department submits that there is 1 2026:UHC:2581-DB delay in filing the present Writ Petition, inasmuch as, the order impugned was passed on 16.08.2024. 4. Since it is not being disputed that, in the show- cause notice, no date for personal hearing was fixed, nor the same was provided to the petitioner-firm at any stage before passing the impugned order, therefore, there is clear violation of the requirement of Section 75(4) of the Act, which vitiates the order. 5. As principles of natural justice have been violated, therefore, we overrule the objection regarding slight delay on part of the petitioner-firm in approaching the Court. 6. The order dated 16.08.2024 is, accordingly, quashed, leaving it open to respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, strictly in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 8. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 09.04.2026 Rajni 2 RAJINI GUSAI N Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db 48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1 d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A22 22B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA01 3F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2026.04.10 10:16:09 +05'30'