Shakumbari Engeineering Work Vs Commissioner of The SGST (Uttarakhand High Court)
In Shakumbari Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of SGST (Uttarakhand High Court), the petitioner challenged orders dated 27.12.2023 and 15.05.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, by the Assistant Commissioner and another authority. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was afforded before passing the GST demand orders, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. During proceedings, the State counsel conceded that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity for personal hearing.
The Court referred to its prior decision in M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner (WPMB No.316 of 2025), where it was held that no order affecting a citizen’s civil rights can be passed without providing a hearing. The Coordinate Bench emphasized that the GST authorities had failed to adhere to the statutory scheme and mandate of the Act, resulting in procedural irregularities.
Relying on this precedent, the Uttarakhand High Court concluded that the impugned orders in the present case were procedurally unsound. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders passed under Section 73, and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The authorities were directed to reconsider the case in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing before any decision is taken.
This judgment reinforces the requirement that GST authorities must follow due process and comply with principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, before issuing demand or recovery orders under the GST Act. It underscores that procedural lapses can render tax orders invalid and necessitate reconsideration by the competent authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
The challenge in the instant petition is made to the order dated 27.12.2023, under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the GST Act”), passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the respondent no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act, the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the multiple orders, passed by this Court.
4. Learned State Counsel very fairly submits that in the instant matter, opportunity of personal hearing has not been given and this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, passed on 05.06.2025 in WPMB No.316 of 2025, M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs. Deputy Commissioner and another.
5. In the case of M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that, “we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the settled position in law that no order, affecting civil rights of a citizen, can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and also failed to appreciate the fact that the mandate, and the scheme of the Act itself, has been violated by the concerned authorities.”
6. The matter is covered, therefore, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 05.06.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMB No.316 of 2025, M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs. Deputy Commissioner and another.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider it, in accordance with law.
