Shivtara Developers Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (Uttarakhand High Court)
Summary: The Uttarakhand High Court in M/s Shivtara Developers Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others considered a writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, imposing tax of ₹12,93,408, interest of ₹2,88,943.80 and a penalty equal to 100% of the alleged tax liability. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing under Section 75(4) had been provided. The petitioner relied on the coordinate Bench decision in M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another, W.P. (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, dated 7 August 2026. The State opposed the petition but could not distinguish the earlier case on facts. The Division Bench accordingly decided the writ petition in terms of that earlier judgment. The short order does not itself specify whether the demand was set aside or remanded; the exact relief under the incorporated judgment requires reference to that judgment.
The controversy concerned the statutory obligation to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse GST adjudication order. Section 75(4) provides for a hearing where a written request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The petitioner invoked this requirement to challenge the adjudication proceedings. The Court’s disposition was based on the earlier coordinate Bench ruling rather than a fresh, detailed examination of the underlying tax demand.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, judgment dated 07.08.2026 (Uttarakhand High Court) — Followed; the present petition was decided in its terms. No verified TaxGuru URL for this decision has been established.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Mr. Faizual Haque, learned counsel with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand through video conferencing.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, “Act”) by respondent no.3, whereby tax liability of ₹12,93,408/- plus interest of ₹2,88,943.80 and penalty equivalent to 100% of the alleged tax liability was imposed upon the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the Act. Section 75(4) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an identical issue was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another, therefore, this Writ Petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another
6. Ms. Pooja Banga, learned State counsel for the respondents, although opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, she could not demonstrate how the facts of the present case are different from the one decided in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another.
7. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 07.08.2026, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 984 of 2025, M/s Warmmax India vs. Commissioner of the SGST and Another.
