Hettro Hardware INDIA vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Hettro Hardware India, challenged an adjudication order dated April 29, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order pertained to the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that they were not provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing before the adjudication order was passed. The respondents are the State of Haryana and others. The judgment also mentions a consequential order of the appellate authority dated June 9, 2025, which is also set aside. The procedural history centers on the alleged violation of natural justice and statutory provisions regarding personal hearings.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated April 29, 2024, and the consequential order of the appellate authority dated June 9, 2025, were in violation of the principles of natural justice and contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the adjudication order was passed. Consequently, the Court directed the setting aside of both the adjudication order and the appellate order. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, provided they strictly followed the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing before passing an adverse order vitiates the order and violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 29.04.2024, passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, specifically Section 75(4) of the Act, by not affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because they were not given a personal hearing. They relied on Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates an opportunity of personal hearing before any adverse action is contemplated. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State of Haryana regarding this issue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not successfully counter the petitioner's claim of a lack of personal hearing.