Case Law Details
K D Engineers Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground of violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 was passed in breach of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, as requests for a personal hearing made on 21.07.2025 and 14.08.2025 were ignored. It was also contended that an additional reply filed on 14.08.2025, raising further grounds, was not considered by the adjudicating authority.
The respondent submitted that the additional reply dated 14.08.2025 was inadvertently overlooked as the portal was not rechecked, and the physical copy reached the authority only on the date of passing the order. It was argued that the authority had considered submissions made during the earlier personal hearing on 11.07.2025 and acted under a bona fide belief that no further submissions would be filed.
Upon examining the record, the Court found that only one personal hearing had been granted on 11.07.2025. Subsequent requests for a hearing and additional submissions made by the petitioner were not considered before passing the order. The Court noted that the additional reply explicitly stated that it had not been taken into account. This amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable on these grounds. The order dated 20.08.2025 and the consequential demand notice in Form DRC-07 dated 04.09.2025 were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with a direction to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court clarified that the order was set aside solely on technical grounds and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. The writ petition was allowed to this extent.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Archit P. Jani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. Since a short issue is involved in the writ petition, the same is taken up for final hearing and is being decided by this order.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Shradha Agrawal, assisted by learned advocate Mr.Manya N. Anjaria, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, as the same has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”). Despite the request made by the petitioner to grant a personal hearing on 21.07.2025 and 14.08.2025 and an email having been sent on 21.07.2025, the respondent-authorities have passed the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 by placing reliance on the personal hearing, which had taken place on 11.07.2025. She has submitted that, in fact, after the said hearing, another reply was filed on 14.08.2025 wherein an additional ground had been taken. The same has also not been considered. Thus, it is urged that on this short ground the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
4. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Jani, while placing reliance on the affidavit-in-reply dated 10.02.2026, more particularly paragraph No. 22, has submitted that the online submission dated 14.08.2025 made by the petitioner appears to have been inadvertently overlooked, as the portal was not rechecked and the final reply dated 21.07.2025 filed by the petitioner was considered. It is submitted that the physical copy of the additional reply dated 14.08.2025 reached the adjudicating authority only on 20.08.2025 i.e. on the date when the order-in-original was issued and subsequent to its passing. It is submitted that due to these circumstances, the adjudicating authority could not consider the additional reply dated 14.08.2025. It is further submitted that since the petitioner, during the personal hearing held on 11.07.2025, did not express any intention to file further submissions and with a bona fide belief, all the submissions made on 11.07.2025 have been considered by the adjudicating authority. Thus, it is urged that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order may not be interfered with.
5. From the pleadings and the documentary evidence on record, we find that the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing only on 11.07.2025. Despite the further request made by the petitioner by email dated 21.07.2025 to grant a hearing before passing any adverse order, as also by communication dated 14.08.2025 wherein the petitioner, while filing the further reply, had also sought a personal hearing, the same has been ignored by the respondents. In fact, the reply categorically mentions that the same was not considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order-in-original dated 20.08.2025. Accordingly, the said order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in breach of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 is quashed and set aside. As a consequence, the demand notice in Form DRC-07 dated 04.09.2025 is also quashed and set aside and the matter is ordered to be remanded back to the competent authority to pass an order afresh after following the statutory provisions and granting a personal hearing to the petitioner as required under the statute. It is further clarified that the impugned order has been quashed and set aside on technical grounds alone and no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Author Bio
