Rohit Vij Proprietor Of M/S Rrr Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of GST
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ thereby setting aside impugned Order dated 27 .09.2021 [For GST DRC - 07] - Reference Number: ZA0709210215230, passed by Sh. Praveen Kumar, Sales Tax Officer Class II, AVATO, Ward No. 61, Delhi State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Trade and Taxes, VyaparBhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi -110002; and/or (ii) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ thereby remanding the matter to the Original Authority for fresh decision to another competent officer; and/or (iii) Grant costs to the Petition in favour of the Petitioners;”
The only contention advanced by learned counsel representing the Petitioner is that the Respondent failed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the Impugned Order This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 11:34:04
dated 27.09.2021, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 („CGST Act‟).In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the Additional Affidavit dated 18.03.2025 filed by the Respondent.
Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was never granted an opportunity of personal hearing and states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to file its Reply to the Show Cause Notice and hence no personal hearing was required.
It is evident that Section 75(4) is couched in two parts. The first part provides for an opportunity of personal hearing where such opportunity is requested by the person chargeable with tax or penalty. The second part, which operates independently, provides that where the proper officer proposes to make an adverse order to such person, an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted. The two contingencies are separated by the word „or‟.
Moreover, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, (2023) 157 Taxmann.com 145 (MP), has also held that sub-section (4) of Section 75 provides for an opportunity of hearing where an adverse order is passed, irrespective of whether a Reply has been filed by the taxable person.
Keeping in view the aforesaid admitted position, the order dated 27.09.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording the Petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing.
The Petitioner shall appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 05.10.2026 at 12 noon. In case there is any change in the date, time or venue, the Petitioner shall be intimated at: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 11:34:04
Mobile No.: 8851616819 Email ID:virgo.rupali@gmail.com.
The present Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
BHARAT PARASHAR, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/ng/kris/shah This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 11:34:04
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.