Sai Uniform vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SAI UNIFORM, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 01.12.2022, passed by respondent No.3, and a subsequent appellate order dated 13.02.2026, passed by respondent No.2. The primary grounds for challenge were the lack of reasons in the Order-in-Original and the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner before its issuance. The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and others, conceded that a personal hearing was not afforded. The operative portion of the order, determining the petitioner's tax liability, was uploaded on the GST portal. The revenue agreed to remit the matter for fresh consideration after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing.

Held

The Court held that the Order-in-Original dated 01.12.2022, passed by respondent No.3, and the subsequent appellate order dated 13.02.2026, passed by respondent No.2, were liable to be set aside. The primary reasoning was the admitted failure to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing before the issuance of the Order-in-Original, which violates principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Court noted that the order did not contain reasons in support of its findings. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside both impugned orders. The respondents were directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and proceed afresh in accordance with law. No coercive action was to be taken henceforth, and any recovery already made was to abide by the fresh reasoned orders. The issue of the specific tax liability amount was not expressly decided as the matter was remitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 01.12.2022 is liable to be set aside for failing to record reasons in support of the order, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST law? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity of personal hearing prior to the issuance of the Order-in-Original dated 01.12.2022, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was vitiated by a lack of reasons and the absence of a personal hearing. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly admitted that the opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the Order-in-Original. The Revenue also admitted that only the operative portion of the order was uploaded. Therefore, the Revenue agreed to remit the matter to the concerned authority for passing fresh orders after affording due opportunity of hearing.