Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/622/2026 of RAVINDRA SINGH DEOPA Vs THE COMMISSIONER STATE TAX on 5 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. 5th August, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No.622 of 2026 Ravindra Singh Deopa ------------Petitioner Versus The Commissioner State Tax and
UKHC010137432026
2026:UHC:6865-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
5th August, 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.622 of 2026
Ravindra Singh Deopa
------------Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner State Tax and Others ----Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 02.01.2026, passed by respondent no.2- the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Pithoragarh Sector – 1, Haldwani, Uttarakhand under Section 74 of the UKSGST, 2017 imposing a tax liability of Rs.22,52,698/- upon the petitioner.
2. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is thus in breach of Section 75(4) of the Act.
3. Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to show to us that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the
UKHC010137432026
2026:UHC:6865-DB petitioner. Consequently, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be sustainable.
4. The impugned order is accordingly quashed with liberty to the Department to pass a fresh order after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 05.08.2026 KKS/PP