##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11562-DB

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

S NL o.

.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPMB 1016/ 2025

WPMB 1017/ 2025

WPMB 1018/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate, for the

petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Banga, Brief Holder, for

the State.

(2) Since common questions of fact

and law are involved in these writ petitions,

therefore, these are being heard and

decided together by this common

judgment. However, for brevity, facts of

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1016 of 2025 alone

are being considered and discussed here.

(3) Petitioner is a taxable person

registered with Uttarakhand GST. He is

challenging the order dated 15.12.2024,

passed by State Tax Officer, Vikas Nagar.

Reliefs sought in the writ petition are as

under:

“a. issue a writ of certiorari or a

writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and

set aside the Impugned Order in Original

dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure No. 1) as the

same has been passed in utter disregard to

the principles of natural justice.

b. issue a writ of certiorari or a

writ in the nature of mandamus directing

Respondent No. 2/Respondent No. 3 to re-

decide the matter after providing an

opportunity of personal hearing to the

petitioners and after considering all the

submissions and documents;

c. issue a writ of certiorari or a

writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and

2025:UHC:11562-DB

set aside the Impugned Appellate Order

dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure No. 6) passed

by Respondent No. 2;”

(4) The main ground of challenge

raised by the petitioner is that opportunity

of personal hearing was not given to him,

as is required under Section 75(4) of

Uttarakhand GST Act. Learned Counsel for

the petitioner submits that the date of

personal hearing indicated in the show

cause notice was 12.3.2024 and last date

of filing reply was mentioned as 24.3.2024

in the show cause notice. Thus it is

submitted that virtually the right of

personal hearing was denied to the

petitioner, as personal hearing can only be

after submission of reply.

(5) Ms. Pooja Banga, learned State

Counsel, concedes that identical issue was

decided by coordinate Bench of this Court

in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025.

(6) Since the issue is covered,

therefore, these writ petitions are also

decided in terms of the judgment rendered

in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 123 of 2025.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

24.12.2025

Pr

P KR UA MB AO RDH DU2dsADe.TiN a5rg68ti:4ae CAtcl:a N =R 2l07Iu0yN=FmK ,s, 33 5ipobCga.Ao=0e9nsNHr8et=2DIdG 5l4 ,Cb D7 oy BCdP 1:O9eR=5U 3A2,E4B fc68T 7O n93D+D =100PFH CaR AK9',3 T6sU5BtM=OEUA D17TR4HB3 K AK9aH URf8A0MNE2KFD1HRc, 5oN08u6D=,H 2AIfGCe aC1OA4UBR56T81 aOf03F52eDFb619C8

2025:UHC:11562-DB