Shree Dauji Agencies vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Dauji Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No.15/GST-2 dated 24.04.2023, along with an order-in-appeal dated 19.12.2025 and another order dated 14.11.2023. The primary ground for challenge was that these orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash these orders based on this procedural irregularity. The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by the State counsel.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 19.12.2025 and 14.11.2023 were indeed passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court accepted the fair stand taken by the respondents, who did not dispute this factual aspect. Consequently, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court decided to remit the matter back to the concerned authority for fresh adjudication. The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were 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. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, are unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 19.12.2025 and 14.11.2023 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, as per the provisions of the relevant GST laws and procedural fairness? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, which constitutes a violation of natural justice principles. Revenue's Contention: The learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents, did not dispute the factual assertion that a personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The State counsel conceded that the matter could be remitted back to the concerned authority for fresh proceedings.