Pet it ioner v. Com m issioner, Com m issionerat e, Dehradun, Ut t arakhand and anot her

: Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel. Counsel for t he r espondent s : Ms. Puj a Banga, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. …Respondent s JUD GM EN T : ( p e r Sr i G. N a r e n d a r , C.J.) Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners places reliance on an order of t his Bench dat ed 21.04.2025, rendered while disposing of Writ Pet it ion ( M/ B) No. 123 of 2025 “ M/ s Modine Therm al Syst em s Privat e Lim it ed vs. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot hers” . The order reads as under: - 1 “ Heard t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioner and learned St at e Counsel. 2) The case in a nut shell is t hat t he pet it ioner was visit ed wit h a show cause not ice dat ed 18.06.2024 issued by t he 2nd respondent in form GST ASMT–10 seeking t he det ails and explanat ion pert aining t o t he difference in t he value of out ward supplies declared in GSTR 1 and value of t he E–way Bills raised in t he financial year 2020- 2021. t he t hat

28.11.2024, 3) That t he pet it ioner effect ed a reply t o t he show cause not ice dat ed 18.06.2024 by it ’s reply dat ed 17.07.2024; 2nd respondent issued form DRC – 01 ( SCN) t o show- cause t hat why a dem and of Rs. 71,57,938/ - shall not be confirm ed wit h int erest for difference in value of out ward supplies declared in GST R- 1 and t he value of E–way Bills raised during t he relevant t he period. Furt her, under respondent s scheduled a personal hearing on 20.12.2024 and m ent ioned subm ission of reply as 28.12.2024. The pet it ioner sought for adj ournm ent of t he dat e of personal hearing t o a dat e aft er t he subm ission of t heir reply. The request for adj ournm ent was prem ised on t he basis of t o collat e t he pet it ioner at t em pt ing inform at ion pert aining t o 2021. t he said not ice, last dat e t he 4) I n our opinion, t he approach of t he Revenue Aut horit y in fixing t he personal hearing dat e before t he last dat e for subm ission of reply is akin t o put t ing t he cart before t he horse. The subm issions t o be m ade during t he personal hearing would necessarily be on t he basis of t he reply effect ed. The approach of t he Aut horit ies on insist ence of having a personal hearing prior cont rary t o t he schem e of t he Act also. t o subm it t ing a reply 5) A conj unct ive reading of Sect ion 73, 74 and 75 m akes it apparent t hat t he approach adopt ed by t he Aut horit y is cont rary t o t he schem e of t he Act . Sub- Sect ion 4 and 5 of Sect ion 75 of t he Act reads as under: - “ 75.( 4) An opport unit y of hearing shall be grant ed where a request is received in writ ing t ax or t he person chargeable wit h 2 penalt y, or where any adverse decision cont em plat ed against such person. t he person chargeable wit h ( 5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by t ax, grant t im e t o t he said person and adj ourn t he hearing for reasons t o be recorded in writ ing: Provided t hat no such adj ournm ent shall be grant ed for m ore t han t hree t im es t o a person during t he proceedings.” is pert inent 6) The schem e of t he Act enables t he assessee t o seek for adj ournm ent not in excess of t hree t im es t hat sub- sect ion 5 t o not e succeeds sub- sect ion 4, which enables t he assessee t o seek for a personal hearing. Sect ion 75 relat es t o t he procedural aspect t hat is required t o be followed by t he Aut horit ies in t he m at t er of det erm inat ion of assessm ent , m ore part icularly, of t hat has escaped assessm ent . t ax 7) I f t he st at ut e st ipulat es a m at t er t o be perform ed in a part icular m anner, t he sam e shall be perform ed in t hat m anner only. Law in t his regard is no m ore is well- set t led by cat ena of j udgm ent s of t he Apex Court . int egra and 8) I n t he case on hand, t he order does not disclose any j ust ifiable reasons for rej ect ing t he applicat ion for request for adj ournm ent and t hat apart , as not ed above, t he approach it self appears t o be incorrect and cont rary t o t he schem e of Sect ion 75, m ore part icularly, sub- sect ion 4 and 5 of Sect ion 75. I n t hat view of 9) t he order of assessm ent is set - aside. The m at t er is rem it t ed back t o t he com pet ent aut horit y t o proceed from t he st age of t he 28.11.2024 not ice. t he m at t er, 10) No order as t o cost s. The writ pet it ion st ands ordered accordingly.”

2. Learned Brief Holder for t he St at e Ms. Puj a Banga subm it s t hat she has been inst ruct ed t o st at e t hat t he fact s involved in t he inst ant cases are sim ilar t o t he fact s in t he writ 3 pet it ion disposed of by t his Court , i.e. Writ Pet it ion ( M/ B) No. 123 of 2025, referred t o hereinabove.

4. The subm ission is placed on record. The inst ant writ pet it ions are also disposed of in t he above t erm s.

6. There shall be no order as t o cost s. Pending applicat ion, if any, also st ands disposed of. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK M A H RA , J. Dt : 29 t h July, 2025 Rat hour PRAVIND RA SINGH RATHOUR RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323 779d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25 946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF9 2A40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F9 06FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR 4