The Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital Bench has held that no GST order affecting civil rights of citizens can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.
The bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Alok Mahra has observed 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 CGST Act itself, has been violated by the concerned authorities.
The challenge in the case was directed against the order dated December 27, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the subsequent order dated May 15, 2025, passed by the appellate authority.
The petitioner contended that both authorities failed to provide the taxpayer with an opportunity of personal hearing before finalizing the assessment under Section 73. It was argued that this procedural lapse directly contravened established judicial precedents of the High Court.
The department conceded that no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner and acknowledged that the matter was squarely covered by the Court’s earlier ruling dated June 5, 2025, in M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner & Another (WPMB No. 316 of 2025).
In that decision, the coordinate bench had observed that “no order, affecting civil rights of a citizen, can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing”, and criticized the authorities for violating both natural justice and the mandate of the GST Act.
Relying on its previous judgment, the Court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the appellate authority were set aside.
The matter has been remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, after granting the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.
Case Details
Case Title: Shakumbari Engineering Work Versus Commissioner of the SGST
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 798 of 2025 (M/B)
Date: 26.09.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Bilal Ahmed, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Banga
Read More: RBI Eases Rules for Closure of Bills of Entry on Free of Cost and Sample Imports
