Avik Televentures Private Limited vs. Office Of The GST Officer Ward 71

Facts

The petitioner, Avik Televentures Private Limited, engaged in trading and export of mobile phones, was subjected to a special audit for FY 2021-2022. Following the audit, a demand notice was issued for Rs. 33,54,21,609. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 24.09.2025 was issued proposing a demand of Rs. 58,02,79,384. The petitioner sought adjournment for personal hearing and filed a reply. However, on 27.12.2025, a 'Reminder-1' was issued with a very short deadline for response and personal hearing on 30.12.2025. The respondent, the Office of the GST Officer, passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) on 31.12.2025, confirming a demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497. The petitioner challenged this OIO through a writ petition, alleging violation of natural justice due to inadequate time for response and hearing, and undue haste in passing the order.

Held

The Court held that the opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner was illusory and not meaningful, violating the principles of natural justice. The 'Reminder-1' notice issued on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, requiring a response by 29.12.2025 and appearance for hearing on 30.12.2025, provided less than one effective working day to collate voluminous documents. The Court found that the petitioner's request for a short adjournment was not duly considered. Mere participation in hearings does not constitute a fair and effective opportunity. The Court also noted the undue haste in passing the OIO on the same day the personal hearing concluded (31.12.2025), raising apprehension that the material might not have been adequately considered. The Court rejected the respondent's contention regarding the alternate remedy, stating that it does not bar writ jurisdiction when principles of natural justice are violated. Consequently, the impugned OIO dated 31.12.2025 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication, with the petitioner permitted to appear on 06.04.2026 with written notes and documents. The Court did not go into the merits of the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner was meaningful and effective, as required under Section 66(4) and Section 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act, given the truncated timeline provided after the 'Reminder-1' notice dated 27.12.2025? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the time granted (less than one effective working day) was wholly inadequate to collate voluminous documents and respond, rendering the opportunity of personal hearing illusory and a violation of principles of natural justice. They argued that the OIO was passed mechanically to meet the limitation period under Section 73(10). Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act. They also contended that the petitioner participated in the hearings on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, and the order was reasoned and passed after considering the material. They further argued that the earlier SCN dated 04.07.2025 pertained to a limited set of transactions, whereas the current proceedings covered a wider scope identified during the special audit, thus no contradiction existed.