M/S Rajendra Singh Cont vs. Commissioner SGST

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajendra Singh Cont, challenged an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This order imposed a tax liability of Rs. 25,83,382/- on the petitioner. The petitioner's primary contention was that despite explicitly opting for a personal hearing when submitting their reply to the Show Cause Notice on 25.10.2025, no such hearing was provided. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Puja Banga, was unable to demonstrate that any date for a personal hearing was fixed based on the petitioner's request.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is rendered vulnerable and is accordingly set aside. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had explicitly opted for a personal hearing in their reply to the Show Cause Notice, but this opportunity was not provided. The Revenue was unable to demonstrate that any date for personal hearing was fixed. Therefore, the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the Department to fix a date for personal hearing, provide due intimation to the petitioner, and after complying with the principles of natural justice, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the non-provision of a personal hearing to the petitioner, despite their explicit request in response to the Show Cause Notice? The petitioner argued that the failure to provide a personal hearing, after they had specifically opted for it in their reply to the Show Cause Notice, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. They contended that this procedural lapse renders the order unsustainable. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Puja Banga, conceded that they could not demonstrate that a date for personal hearing was fixed following the petitioner's request.