Hind Maha Mineral LLP Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, considered Writ Petition No. 2973/2026 filed by Hind Maha Mineral LLP challenging an order dated 5 January 2026 and a rectification order of the same date. The first order had been passed under Section 74A(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that while passing the order, respondent No. 3 had not granted an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where an adverse decision is contemplated.
The respondents contended that a hearing had been given, but the petitioner clarified that the hearing held on 16 October 2025 related to a different matter concerning mismatch of input tax credit. The Court recorded that the notice in the present matter was issued on 11 November 2025 and that no opportunity of hearing was given thereafter; the notice itself indicated that personal hearing was not applicable. The Court consequently held the impugned order unsustainable for want of hearing. The second challenge concerned clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 74A, under which tax together with interest payable under Section 50 could be paid within 60 days of issuance of the show cause notice, with no penalty payable and the proceedings deemed concluded upon such payment. The judgment records an inconsistency in paragraph 8, where the notice is stated as having been issued on 11 November 2026, although paragraph 6 records the notice date as 11 November 2025.
The Court nevertheless proceeded on the recorded 60-day period and found that the impugned order had been passed before expiry of that period. The respondents relied on Section 107 and contended that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority, relying upon the judgment in Writ Petition (L) No. 15871/2026, Mahapuja Ltd. Through its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah Vs. The office of Commissioner of GST, dated 05.08.2026.
The Court distinguished that decision on facts and held that where an order is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, in breach of statutory provisions or where there is an apparent error, the petitioner may approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finding both denial of hearing and breach of Section 74A(8)(ii), the Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to pay litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks and permitted respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to recover the costs from the officer who passed the orders. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 5 January 2026 and rectification order dated 05 January 2026 were quashed and set aside.
Cases Discussed
- Mahapuja Ltd. Through its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah Vs. The office of Commissioner of GST, Writ Petition (L) No. 15871/2026, dated 05.08.2026
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. The challenge is to the order dated 5th January, 2026 and the order of rectification of even date.
2. So far as the first order is concerned, it is passed under Section 74A(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (In short, the Act of 2017).
3. The argument is that while passing the order under Section 74A(5), the respondent No.3 has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017. Subsection 4 provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case concerns later part of the provision which provides that where any adverse decision is contemplated, opportunity of hearing should be granted. The adverse decision in the present is imposing penalty amongst other liability. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opportunity of hearing was not given.
5. As against, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that opportunity of hearing was given. To which, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the hearing was given on 16th October, 2025 and it was pertaining to some different matter, which includes mismatch of input debt tax credit. According to him, the opportunity of hearing is to be given once notice is issued in the matter so as to enable the assessee to defend the case.
6. Admittedly, notice in the present case was given on 11th November, 2025 and no opportunity of hearing was given thereafter. In fact, the notice issued itself indicates that the personal hearing is not applicable. That being so, the impugned order is unsustainable having been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. So far as the second challenge is concerned, the notice was issued on 11th November, 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to clause (ii) of Subsection 8 of Section 74A of the Act of 2017, which provides that where any tax is payable or which is short paid or erroneously refunded and for such other contingencies as provided, the person may pay the said tax along with interest payable under Section 50 within 60 days of issuance of show cause notice and on doing so, no penalty shall be payable and proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.
8. In the present case, there is no dispute that the notice demanding tax, interest and penalty was issued on 11th November, 2026, period of 60 days will conclude on 10th January, 2026. The order, however, has been passed on 5th January, 2026.
9. Upon enquiry, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, on instructions of Mr. Sopan K. Solanke, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Nagpur, submits that the order indeed has been passed within 60 days.
10. Despite such status, the learned Assistant Government Pleader raised objection saying that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. In support, he has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 15871/2026 (Mahapuja Ltd. Through its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah Vs. The office of Commissioner of GST), dated 05.08.2026. We have gone through the said judgment. The facts were altogether different.
11. It is well settled that where the order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice or is passed in breach of the provisions of law or where there is an apparent error, the petitioner may approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the present case, it is evident that opportunity of hearing was not given and secondly, that, the impugned order is passed in breach of the provisions under clause (ii) of subsection 8 of Section 74A of the Act of 2017. Thus, the respondents are aware that the order is unsustainable. The respondents, in such circumstances, should have taken corrective steps upon receiving notice in the petition. Having not done so, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to pay cost of the litigation to the petitioner, which we quantify to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only). The cost should be paid within two weeks from today.
13. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 may recover the cost from the officer, who has passed these orders.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
15. The impugned order dated 5th January, 2026 and rectification order dated 05th January, 2026, passed by the respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside.
16. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of above.
