Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside GST Order Due to Procedural Non-Compliance

Court Remands Case Back to Authority for Fresh Hearing, Emphasizes Strict Adherence to Statutory Provisions

In a significant judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court has set aside an assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court remanded the case back to the competent authority, directing them to recommence proceedings from the stage of personal hearing.

The case involved Atlanta Tele Cables, which had sought an adjournment for a personal hearing due to the petitioner being abroad. The court noted that under Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, a taxpayer is entitled to request up to three adjournments. However, the authorities failed to grant this request and proceeded with adverse orders against Atlanta Tele Cables.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, emphasized that procedural compliance is paramount and any deviation renders the decision invalid. The court cited previous interpretations of Section 75, underscoring that both sub-sections (4) and (5) must be followed strictly. Sub-section (4) mandates granting a hearing upon request, while sub-section (5) allows for adjournments if sufficient cause is shown.

In its judgment, the court stated, "The order does not disclose any justifiable reasons for rejecting the application for request for adjournment. The approach itself appears to be incorrect and contrary to the scheme of Section 75." The court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that tax authorities adhere to statutory requirements, thereby safeguarding taxpayers' rights.

The court ordered the matter to be reheard, starting from the personal hearing stage, with the petitioner agreeing to appear on December 4, 2025. The Deputy Commissioner has been directed to either proceed with the hearing on this date or assign another suitable date. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the critical importance of procedural fairness in tax assessments.

Bottom Line:

Goods and Services Tax - Personal hearing - Authorities are bound to grant adjournments if requested within the permissible limit under Section 75(5) of CGST Act, 2017 - Statutory provisions must be adhered to strictly, and any deviation from prescribed procedure renders the decision contrary to law.

Statutory provision(s): Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 75(4), Section 75(5)

Atlanta Tele Cables v. Deputy Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax, (Uttarakhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820806