MS NEW DEV BHOOMI AGRO v. THE COMMISSIONER STATE TAX HEADQUARTERS
WPMB/501/2026 · 2026-06-18
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7278 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7278 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
UKHC010104292026
2026:UHC:5027-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 June 18, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No.501 of 2026 M/s New Dev Bhoomi Agro
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, State Tax Headquarters, Dehradun & Another
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State through Video Conferencing.
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2018-19. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 18.12.2023, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act.
3.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ Revenue Department submits that there is delay in filing the present Writ Petition, inasmuch as, the order
1
UKHC010104292026
2026:UHC:5027-DB
impugned was passed on 23.04.2024.
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 23.04.2024 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.
3.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 18.06.2026 Rajni
2