Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/501/2026 of MS NEW DEV BHOOMI AGRO Vs THE COMMISSIONER STATE TAX HEADQUARTERS on 18 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY June 18, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No.501 of 2026 M/s New Dev Bhoomi Agro ----Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, State Tax Headquarters,
UKHC010104292026
2026:UHC:5027-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
June 18, 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.501 of 2026
M/s New Dev Bhoomi Agro
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, State Tax Headquarters, Dehradun & Another
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State through Video Conferencing.
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2018-19. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 18.12.2023, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ Revenue Department submits that there is delay in filing the present Writ Petition, inasmuch as, the order
UKHC010104292026
2026:UHC:5027-DB
impugned was passed on 23.04.2024.
4. Since it is not being disputed that, in the show- cause notice, no date for personal hearing was fixed, nor the same was provided to the petitioner-firm at any stage before passing the impugned order, therefore, there is clear violation of the requirement of Section 75(4) of the Act, which vitiates the order.
5. As principles of natural justice have been violated, therefore, we overrule the objection regarding slight delay on part of the petitioner-firm in approaching the Court.
6. The order dated 23.04.2024 is, accordingly, quashed, leaving it open to respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, strictly in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
3. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 18.06.2026 Rajni