Ms Brijbihari Concast Private LTD vs. State Tax SGST

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brijbihari Concast Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the State Tax SGST. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not afforded a personal hearing despite specifically requesting it in their replies dated 11.12.2025 and 26.12.2025. The High Court initially sought instructions from the revenue. On 06.04.2026, the Court noted that the instructions provided by the Deputy Commissioner were vague and lacked documentary evidence to show how the petitioner was intimated of any personal hearing dates, specifically mentioning 27.10.2025 and 03.11.2025. The revenue was granted further time to produce documentary evidence.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and corresponding State Act), as the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of personal hearing. The revenue conceded that no written notice was issued to the petitioner intimating them of any date fixed for personal hearing. The Court found the instructions provided by the revenue to be vague and lacking documentary evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was duly notified. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the department to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory requirement for personal hearing, as stipulated in Section 75(4), must be strictly adhered to, and mere vague assertions or lack of documentary proof of intimation will not suffice to deny this right.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, passed by the Adjudicating Officer, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as guaranteed under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and corresponding State Act)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing, despite their explicit requests made on 11.12.2025 and 26.12.2025. They relied on the principle of natural justice, which mandates a hearing before an adverse order is passed. Revenue's Argument: The revenue initially sought time to obtain instructions. Subsequently, their instructions indicated that the petitioner was asked to be present for personal hearings on 27.10.2025 and 03.11.2025, but failed to provide any documentary proof of intimation to the petitioner regarding these dates. The revenue conceded that no written notice was issued to the petitioner intimating them of any date fixed for personal hearing.