Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5650 (UTT)

MS JOSHI AGENCIES v. THE COMMISSIONER STATE TAX

WPMB/261/2026 · 2026-05-14

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3689-DB I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 1 4 TH MAY, 2 0 2 6 W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) No. 2 61 OF 2 0 2 6 M/ s Joshi Agencies. …Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, State Tax and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents. : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (per Sh r i Man oj Ku m ar Gu p t a, C.J.) 1. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by order dated 29.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UKGST Act, has filed the present writ petition. The sole contention is that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 04.03.2025, the respondents granted time to the petitioner to submit his reply by 04.04.2025, whereas date for personal hearing was fixed on 17.03.2025. Thus, the submission is that date for personal hearing, fixed prior to submission of the reply, was not in consonance with the statutory scheme, and the petitioner, before submitting his reply was not in a position to participate in oral hearing. The petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this Court in WPMB No. 202/ 2026, “M/ s Green Gold Refrigeration v. The 1 2026:UHC:3689-DB Commissioner, State Tax and another” in support of his submission. It has been held in the said case that, in case date for personal hearing is fixed before the date fixed for filing of the reply, the hearing offered to the assessee would be illusory, and not in conformity with the procedure prescribed. 2. As the aforesaid factual position is not being disputed by Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, therefore, we quash the impugned order dated 29.05.2025, and leave it open to the concerned respondents to pass a fresh order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 4. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 14th May, 2026 Rahul 2 RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66 e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19 2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4 898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.05.15 11:33:13 +05'30'