Uttarakhand High Court Quashed GST Demand Order for Failure to Grant Personal Hearing

The <a href="https://studycafe.in/uttarakhand-high-court-grants-relief-in-gst-registration-cancellation-419860.html">Uttarakhand High Court</a> quashed the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the UK GST Act, as the assessee was not heard personally, violating Section 75(4) of the Act and principles of natural justice.

<div class="related-article-inline">Also Read<a href="/delhi-high-court-upholds-7-day-notice-before-gst-arrest-in-rs-8-crore-itc-fraud-case-423215.html" class="related-link">Delhi High Court Upholds 7-Day Notice Before GST Arrest in Rs 8 Crore ITC Fraud Case</a></div>

The petitioner, Sunny Kumar, approached the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated 2nd July 2025 passed by the state GST authorities under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order had been passed without fixing any date for a <a href="https://studycafe.in/gst-demand-order-invalid-without-personal-hearing-rules-patna-high-court-421101.html">personal hearing</a> and without providing an effective opportunity for the petitioner to present his case effectively. The show cause notice dated 7th July 2023 was referred to, and it did not mention any date of hearing.

The State’s counsel admitted that the impugned order had been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was admitted that such action was contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the UKGST Act. The Division Bench held that the adjudication order caused a clear violation of the statutory requirement prescribed under Section 75(4) of the Act.

<div class="related-article-inline">Also Read<a href="/supreme-court-quashes-ccis-rs-202-crore-penalty-on-amazon-423185.html" class="related-link">Supreme Court Quashes CCI’s Rs 202 Crore Penalty on Amazon</a></div>

The court observed that the show cause notice itself did not specify any date for a personal hearing, and the revenue had also accepted that no hearing was granted before passing the order.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 2nd July 2025 could not be sustained in law and quashed the order and reaffirmed that the opportunity of personal hearing contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST law is a mandatory safeguard. Any adjudication order passed under Section 74 without granting such an opportunity violates statutory provisions as well as principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

<div class="related-article-inline">Also Read<a href="/allahabad-hc-retired-employee-entitled-to-interest-on-delayed-pensionary-benefits-administrative-delays-cannot-prejudice-retiree-423182.html" class="related-link">Allahabad HC: Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Pensionary Benefits; Administrative Delays Cannot Prejudice Retiree</a></div>

The Uttarakhand High Court also granted liberty to the revenue authorities to proceed afresh on the basis of the existing show cause notice after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Uttarakhand High Court Quashed GST Demand Order for Failure to Grant Personal Hearing

The <a href="https://studycafe.in/uttarakhand-high-court-grants-relief-in-gst-registration-cancellation-419860.html">Uttarakhand High Court</a> quashed the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the UK GST Act, as the assessee was not heard personally, violating Section 75(4) of the Act and principles of natural justice.

[related id="423215"]

The petitioner, Sunny Kumar, approached the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated 2nd July 2025 passed by the state GST authorities under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order had been passed without fixing any date for a <a href="https://studycafe.in/gst-demand-order-invalid-without-personal-hearing-rules-patna-high-court-421101.html">personal hearing</a> and without providing an effective opportunity for the petitioner to present his case effectively. The show cause notice dated 7th July 2023 was referred to, and it did not mention any date of hearing.

The State’s counsel admitted that the impugned order had been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was admitted that such action was contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of the UKGST Act. The Division Bench held that the adjudication order caused a clear violation of the statutory requirement prescribed under Section 75(4) of the Act.

[related id="423185"]

The court observed that the show cause notice itself did not specify any date for a personal hearing, and the revenue had also accepted that no hearing was granted before passing the order.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 2nd July 2025 could not be sustained in law and quashed the order and reaffirmed that the opportunity of personal hearing contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST law is a mandatory safeguard. Any adjudication order passed under Section 74 without granting such an opportunity violates statutory provisions as well as principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

[related id="423182"]

The Uttarakhand High Court also granted liberty to the revenue authorities to proceed afresh on the basis of the existing show cause notice after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The Uttarakhand HC has quashed a GST demand order passed under Section 74 of the UK GST Act after finding that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of a personal hearing before the adjudication.

Uttarakhand High Court Quashed GST Demand Order for Failure to Grant Personal Hearing 

YES Bank has received a Rs 63.27 crore GST demand notice from Maharashtra tax authorities and plans to challenge the order through legal appeal.

YES Bank Receives GST Tax Demand Notice of Rs 63.27 Crore

5paisa receives an SCN from SEBI, proposing to cancel its registration as an investment adviser for not paying the prescribed fees under the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013. 

SEBI Proposes to Cancel 5paisa's Registration as Investment Adviser Over Non-Payment of Prescribed Fees

Nine firms and businessmen booked for allegedly obtaining GST registrations through forged documents and claiming fake ITC benefits.


GST Fraud Crackdown: Ludhiana Police Register Cases Against 9 Firms

A comprehensive guide for senior citizens on selecting the correct ITR form for AY 2026-27, understanding eligibility rules, exemptions, and avoiding common tax filing mistakes.

Senior Citizens’ ITR Filing Guide AY 2026-27: How to Choose Right Form and Avoid Costly Mistakes

The Jharkhand High Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of fraudulently obtaining identity documents from a landlord to create a forged GST account. 


Jharkhand High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in Case Involving Alleged Fraudulent GST Registration

The High Court granted relief against the unlawful retention of seized money, holding that authorities cannot continue to hold funds without legal justification. The ruling reinforces taxpayer rights and procedural fairness.

High Court Orders Relief Over Unlawful Retention of Seized Money

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand of Rs. 15.58 lakh raised against a registered dealer after holding that input tax credit cannot be denied merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax with the Government. 


Gauhati High Court Quashes GST Demand Against Bona Fide Purchaser Because of Supplier’s Default

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that the existence of an effective alternative statutory remedy bars interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 


Delhi High Court Declines to Entertain GST Writ Petition Due to The Availability of Appeal Remedy

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition of Rs 1.34 crore made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act in respect of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. 

ITAT Delhi Upholds Rs 1.34 Crore Addition on Demonetisation Cash Deposits And Holds Purchase Transactions Non-Genuine

The Allahabad High Court has held that the arrest and detention of a person under the CGST Act were illegal as the authorities failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards.


Allahabad High Court Declares GST Arrest for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedures As Illegal

Income Tax

Finance

ICAI

Judgement

ITAT

ITAT Delhi

Chartered Accountant

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

CBDT

High Court denies anticipatory bail, citing need for custodial interrogation in corruption investigation.

HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Panchayat Funds Embezzlement Case

Reliance Infrastructure faces a Rs 77.86 crore bank account lien after a Customs Appeals order, and plans to appeal the decision.

Reliance Infra Bank Accounts Face Rs 77.86 Crore Lien After Customs Appeals Order

Employers must issue Form 16 by June 15, 2026, enabling salaried taxpayers to verify income, TDS, deductions, and other tax details before filing their income tax returns.