I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. G. NARENDAR

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 792 of 2025

24^th September, 2025

Manoj Kumar Agarwal --------Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner of the SGST, Commissonerate at

Dehradun and another.

-------Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Bilal Ahamad, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition

with the following prayers:

(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the order dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure No.2) passed by

the respondent no.2 u/S 73 of the GST Act.

(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondent not recover any amount and direct the respondent no.2 to provide

opportunity of personal hearing before passing any fresh order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Notice dated 02.12.2023 was never received by the petitioner and the order impugned has been passed in violation of the Principle of Natural Justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by the Order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 697 of 2025 M/S Poddar Ispat Private Ltd. Vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner and another. The said (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 697 of 2025 ) was disposed of in terms of the order dated 05.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition (M/B) 2025, Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner and another.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Puja Banga also submits that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (WPMB No. 316 of 2025) has held as hereunder:

“2. The short point, that is canvassed before this Court is that the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment in violation of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “CGST Act”). Section 75 of the CGST Act deals with the general provisions relating to determination of tax, and the procedure that is required to be adopted by the Assessing Authority, while completing the process of assessment. One such pre- requisite is that the Assessing Authority is required to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, where it is requested by the Assessee in writing, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person, meaning thereby that the Assessing Authority is required to comply with the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 75 in either of the two circumstances, i.e. where a request for personal hearing is made and specifically sought for in writing, or where an adverse decision is contemplated against such person.

3. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has drawn conclusions adverse to the interest of the petitioner, and that being the undisputed fact, the Assessing Authority was required to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, even in the absence of a written request. It is needless to say that, when the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, the said act shall be performed in the said manner alone, or not at all. Law in this regard is no more res integra, and is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023 dated 29.01.2025. Paragraph nos. 54 & 83 of the said judgment reads as follows:

“54. In the present interpretive exercise, one a