M/S New Bharat Metals vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Bharat Metals, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The core issue revolved around whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Rajasthan/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before an impugned order was passed against them. The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, were granted time to file a reply and seek instructions on this specific point. The respondents' counsel, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner was informed about the personal hearing through telecommunication, but no formal notice was issued. This factual scenario mirrored a previous case, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4325/2025, where a similar issue led to the quashing of an order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying on a co-ordinate bench's order in a factually similar case, the Court found that informing the petitioner about a personal hearing solely through telecommunication, without issuing a formal notice, did not constitute a proper opportunity for hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the Rajasthan/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The reasoning was that such an informal communication might not be sufficient to ensure the petitioner was adequately aware and prepared for the hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a formal notice is essential for a valid personal hearing under GST law to uphold natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 4 (Deputy Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax, Circle-Tonk) for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 4 on July 7, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner through telecommunication, without a formal notice, satisfies the requirement of Section 75(4) of the Rajasthan/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner relied on a co-ordinate bench's order in a similar case (M/s New Bharat Metals vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4325/2025). In that case, the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, admitted that no notice was issued, and information for personal hearing was only sent via telecommunication. The co-ordinate bench held that this violated the principles of natural justice. Respondents' Contention: The respondents' counsel, on instruction, stated that the petitioner was informed about the personal hearing through telecommunication. They did not dispute the factual similarity to the cited co-ordinate bench's order and did not press for filing a reply when the court indicated inclination to allow the petition on similar terms.