The Swami Ji Cooperative Labour And Construction Society LTD vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. The Swami Ji Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) and Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), along with a show cause notice dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1). The primary grievance was that these orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The State of Haryana, represented by the learned State counsel, did not dispute the factual assertion that a personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner. Consequently, the State counsel agreed that the matter could be remitted back to the concerned authority for fresh proceedings.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 18.12.2025 and Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025 were indeed passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court acknowledged the fair stand taken by the respondents (State of Haryana) who did not dispute this factual aspect. The Court found that the failure to provide a personal hearing constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the concerned authority. The authority was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner is granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court also directed that no coercive action would be taken henceforth, and any recovery already made would abide by the fresh orders to be passed. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 18.12.2025 and Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025, passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.06.2025, are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders and the consequential demand notice were passed without providing them with a personal hearing, which is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. They sought the quashing of these orders on this ground. Revenue's Contention: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, conceded that a personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. They did not dispute the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice and agreed to the remittance of the matter back to the concerned authority for fresh proceedings.