Rohit VIJ Vs Commissioner of GST
Summary: The Delhi High Court set aside the GST adjudication order dated 27.09.2021 challenged by Rohit VIJ and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after an effective opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07, bearing reference number ZA0709210215230, and a fresh decision by another competent officer.
The sole contention advanced before the Court concerned the failure to grant a personal hearing before passing the order, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Counsel relied on the respondent’s additional affidavit dated 18.03.2025 and submitted that the petitioner had never been granted a personal hearing and was ready and willing to file a reply to the show cause notice. The Court explained that Section 75(4) contains two independent contingencies separated by the word “or”: a hearing must be granted when requested by the person chargeable with tax or penalty, and independently when the proper officer proposes an adverse order against that person. The Court also relied on Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the hearing requirement applies irrespective of whether the taxable person has filed a reply. In view of the admitted position, the Court directed the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an effective personal hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear on 05.10.2026 at 12 noon, with any change in the date, time or venue to be communicated at the specified contact details. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving all rights and contentions on merits open.
Cases Discussed
- Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, 101 GST 110/80 GSTL 4 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) — Relied upon for the proposition that Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse order is passed, irrespective of whether the taxable person has filed a reply.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ thereby setting aside impugned Order dated 27 .09.2021 [For GST DRC – 07] – Reference Number: ZA0709210215230, passed by Sh. Praveen Kumar, Sales Tax Officer Class II, AVATO, Ward No. 61, Delhi State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Trade and Taxes, VyaparBhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi -110002; and/or
(ii) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ thereby remanding the matter to the Original Authority for fresh decision to another competent officer; and/or
(iii) Grant costs to the Petition in favour of the Petitioners;”
2. The only contention advanced by learned counsel representing the Petitioner is that the Respondent failed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the Impugned Order dated 27.09.2021, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 („CGST Act’).In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the Additional Affidavit dated 18.03.2025 filed by the Respondent.
3. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was never granted an opportunity of personal hearing and states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to file its Reply to the Show Cause Notice and hence no personal hearing was required.
4. It is evident that Section 75(4) is couched in two parts. The first part provides for an opportunity of personal hearing where such opportunity is requested by the person chargeable with tax or penalty. The second part, which operates independently, provides that where the proper officer proposes to make an adverse order to such person, an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted. The two contingencies are separated by the word ‘or’.
5. Moreover, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes 101 GST 110/80 GSTL 4 (Madhya Pradesh), has also held that sub-section (4) of Section 75 provides for an opportunity of hearing where an adverse order is passed, irrespective of whether a Reply has been filed by the taxable person.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid admitted position, the order dated 27.09.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording the Petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing.
7. The Petitioner shall appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 05.10.2026 at 12 noon. In case there is any change in the date, time or venue, the Petitioner shall be intimated at:
Mobile No.: 8851616819
Email ID: [email protected].
8. The present Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open.
