| |
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 113
|
| Court : High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Case No : Writ Petiton (M/B) No. 873 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY |
| Parties : Atul Kumar Versus The Superintendent |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Priyanshi Mishra, learned counsel. For the Respondent: Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel (VC), Tanmay Tiwari, learned counsel. |
| Date of Judgment : 08-10-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Central GST Act, 2017 - Section 74 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 UHC 9140,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 74 of the Central GST Act, 2017
- Central GST Act, 2017
2. Catch Words:
- natural justice
- show cause notice
- personal hearing
- ex‑parte
3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 74 of the Central GST Act, 2017 and the accompanying show‑cause notice on the ground that the notice did not specify a date for personal hearing, alleging a breach of natural justice. The respondent contended that three hearing dates (13‑01‑2026, 22‑01‑2026, 05‑02‑2026) were subsequently fixed, which the petitioner failed to attend, leading to an ex‑parte order. The court noted that the petitioner made no rebuttal to the fixed hearing dates and that the absence of a hearing date in the original notice does not invalidate the final order. No additional grounds were raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was found to lack merit.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ.
1. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order-in-original dated 09.03.2026, passed under Section 74 of the Central GST Act, 2017 as well as show cause notice dated 11.11.2025.
2. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the show cause notice no date of personal hearing was mentioned, and consequently, the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned order be quashed, and the matter be remanded back for deciding the same afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, assisted by Mr. Tanmay Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for the respondent submit that although in the show cause notice no date of personal hearing was mentioned, but during pendency of the proceedings, three dates were fixed for personal hearing, i.e., 13.01.2026, 22.01.2026 and 05.02.2026. However, the petitioner did not avail the said opportunities, and, therefore, the Department was compelled to pass the impugned order ex-parte.
4. Although, in the impugned order, it is specifically recorded that dates for personal hearing were fixed on 13.01.2026, 22.01.2026 and 05.02.2026, but the petitioner did not appear on the said dates, there is no rebuttal to the same in the writ petition. Consequently, even if initially in the show cause notice no date of personal hearing was fixed, that would not invalidate the final order which has been passed after fixing three dates for personal hearing.
5. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
|
| |
