The Uttarakhand High Court has cancelled a GST demand that was made against a taxpayer. This happened because the tax department did not consider the taxpayer’s request to postpone the hearing, as he was out of the country at that time.
The applicant had approached the court contesting an order issued under section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, claiming that the adjudicating officer proceeded in the absence of the applicant, even after being duly notified that he was not present in India and was not able to take part in the hearing or provide the records.
The adjournment request, given in writing, was neither considered nor decided, and the authority went on to issue the demand order charging tax, interest, and penalty.
The counsel of the applicant has provided the original passport. HC, considering the record, said that on 20.07.2025 the applicant had exited the country and returned on 31.07.2025 and that the respondent authority failed to grant any adjournment.
Important: Uttarakhand HC Slams Dept Over Unlawful GST ITC Blocking, Questions Legal Basis for Coercive Action
The bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay stated that the applicant is eligible to seek a maximum of three adjournments; that the applicant had asked for one adjournment, but the authority, overlooking it and without considering the application for adjournment, has proceeded to pass orders, and the orders are unfavourable to the interest of the applicant.
The Uttarakhand High Court, after finding the impugned order poor in law, set aside the demand order and remanded the case for fresh proceedings.
The applicant’s counsel said that the applicant shall appear for a personal hearing dated 04.12.2025 at 11:00 a.m. The bench directed that the respondent might proceed to hear the applicant on the specified date or would assign any other date.
The court directed that the applicant shall appear on any other date that may be requested by the applicant, and the applicant shall positively conclude the personal hearing on the mentioned date.
| Case Title | Atlanta Tele Cables vs. DCST |
| Case No. | Writ Petition (M/B) No.991 of 2025 |
| Counsel for Petitioner | Mr Nitesh Jain |
| Counsel for Respondent | Ms Puja Banga |
| Uttarakhand High Court | Read Order |
