Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner Of The SGST

Held

The Court held that the order dated 02.12.2023 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the Assessing Authority is required to afford an opportunity of personal hearing when adverse decisions are contemplated against a person, even in the absence of a written request. The Court referred to a coordinate bench's decision in Writ Petition (WPMB No. 316 of 2025), which emphasized that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done so, or not at all. The Court found that the Appellate Authority had failed to appreciate that orders resulting in civil consequences must be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing and that the scheme of the Act, particularly Section 75(4), had been violated. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the notice.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 02.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the notice dated 02.12.2023 was never received, and the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous High Court orders. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of SGST, Dehradun, agreed that the petition could be disposed of in terms of prior judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the GST Act is 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 order was passed in violation of natural justice as the notice was not received, and no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. They relied on previous High Court orders, specifically Writ Petition (M/B) No. 697 of 2025 (M/S Poddar Ispat Private Ltd. Vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner and another) and Writ Petition (M/B) 2025 (Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner and another). Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition.