Disposed¶25

Yudhbir Singh v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jul 2026CWP/11797/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HPGST Act 2017; Section 169 (service/communication of orders); Section 79 and Section 79(1)(c) (recovery and bank account attachment); Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.01.2021 unserved/not uploaded; Form GST DRC-13 withdrawn; writ of certiorari; limitation reckoned from date of service; limitation left open; petition disposed; High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; CWP No.11797 of 2026; decided 17.07.2026; Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to the respondents to serve the impugned order/Form GST DRC-07 communication upon the petitioner in accordance with Section 169 HPGST Act, 2017; limitation, if applicable, to be reckoned from the date of service; all limitation questions left open; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed. ¶25

Yudhbir Singh Vs the State of Hp — GST and Indirect Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the adjudication (if any) made against the petitioner, which was never communicated or served in accordance with Section 169 of the HPGST Act, 2017. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Respondents are directed to serve upon the petitioner the communication/impugned order (Form GST DRC-07) in consonance with the provisions of Section 169 of the HPGST Act, 2017.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Limitation, if applicable, shall be reckoned from the date of service of the impugned order upon the petitioner.

¶23

Key takeaways

The Court expressed no opinion on the limitation period applicable to the respondents in passing the impugned order or to the petitioner in challenging it; all such issues are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority or appropriate forum as and when raised.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma, JJ.) of the Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of CWP No.11797 of 2026 (Yudhbir Singh v. State of H.P. and others). Through the Advocate General's instructions dated 16.07.2026, the Department of State Taxes and Excise admitted that the Proper Officer's adjudication order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.01.2021 was never uploaded on the portal, leaving the petitioner uninformed, and that the Form GST DRC-13 recovery notice under Section 79(1)(c) HPGST Act (bank account attachment) had been withdrawn with the bank asked to allow normal functioning. The Court directed service of the impugned order upon the petitioner in consonance with Section 169 HPGST Act, 2017 and held that limitation, if applicable, shall be reckoned from the date of service; all questions of limitation (against the respondents for the delayed adjudication and against the petitioner for the delayed challenge) were expressly left open. No opinion was expressed on the validity or merits of the adjudication itself.

¶1

2026:HHC:29341

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.11797 of 2026 Date of decision: 17.07.2026

¶4

__________________________________________________________ Yudhbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondents and others

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶7

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the petitioner:	Mr. Vishal	M	ohan,	Senior
	Advocate wi	th	Mr.	Praveen
	Sharma and Advocates.	Mr	. Adi	tya Sood,
For the respondents:	Mr. Anup	Rat	tan,	Advocate
	General wit	h	Mr.	Sushant
	Keprate, Ad	ditio	nal	Advocate
	General-State.

¶9

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the

¶11

following substantive reliefs:-

¶12

“10(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the adjudication, if any made, though the same has not been communicated to the petitioner so far against the petitioner as the same has not been served upon the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Section 169 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017 nor any other order has been served upon the petitioner;

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2026:HHC:29341

¶15

¶16

(B) That this Hon’ble Court may please to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the attachment of petitioner’s bank account made under Section 79 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.”

¶17

2. Matter was listed yesterday i.e. 16.07.2026, and was adjourned to today to enable the learned Advocate General to have complete instructions.

¶18

3. Today, learned Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 16.07.2026 received from Department of State Taxes and Excise, whereby it has been communicated that though Proper Officer had passed an order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 22.01.2021, but the same could not be uploaded on the portal of the petitioner meaning thereby the petitioner remained uninformed about the said order.

¶19

4. Along with the aforesaid instructions, a communication sent by Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise to the Branch Manager Punjab National Bank for revocation of notice of recovery of outstanding dues under Section 79 (1)(c) of HPGST Act, 2017 has also been placed on record, whereby Form GST DRC-13 has been withdrawn and the bank has been requested to

¶20

2026:HHC:29341

¶21

¶22

allow normal functioning of the tax payer i.e. petitioner as the restrictions imposed under the notice are no longer applicable.

¶23

5. In aforesaid facts respondents are directed to serve upon the petitioner the communication/ impugned order in consonance with the provisions of Section 169 of the HPGST Act, 2017. Insofar as limitation is concerned, if applicable, the same shall be reckoned from the date of service of the impugned order upon the petitioner.

¶24

6. We have not expressed any opinion with respect to the limitation period applicable either to the respondents in passing the impugned order or to the petitioner in challenging the same. All such issues are left open to be considered and decided by competent authority or the appropriate forum, as and when raised.

¶25

7. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed

¶26

in the aforesaid terms along with pending miscellaneous

¶27

application(s), if any.

¶28

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

¶29

Judge

¶30

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge