GST Order affecting Civil Rights of Citizen cannot Pass without Hearing: Uttarakhand HC Quashes S. 73 Demand Order [Read Order]
No order, affecting civil rights of a citizen, can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, said the bench.
GST Order affecting Civil Rights - Citizen cannot Pass without Hearing - Uttarakhand HC - Taxscan
GST Order affecting Civil Rights - Citizen cannot Pass without Hearing - Uttarakhand HC - Taxscan
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a demand order issued under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( GST Act ) on the ground that it was passed without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing.
Shakumbari Engineering Work, petitioner challenged against an order issued under Section 73 of GST Act dated 27 December 2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, and a subsequent order dated 15 May 2025 by the appellate authority.
The petitioner argued that the proceedings were vitiated as no hearing was granted before the order determining tax liability was finalized.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Alok Mahra noted that the issue stood squarely covered by the earlier judgment of the same Court in M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v. Deputy Commissioner (decided on 5 June 2025).
In that precedent, the Court had held that no order affecting the civil rights of a citizen can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, stating that such a mandate flows not only from constitutional guarantees but also from the scheme of the GST Act itself.
According to the court ‘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.”’
The bench noting the precedent, set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider it and allowed the appeal.
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Ms. Pooja Banga, Standing Counsel for the State.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
