Mohammad Adil vs. Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Mohammad Adil, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.10.2022 and a show cause notice dated 06.06.2022, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought to quash these documents and prevent any coercive steps. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the respondent violated Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by failing to provide a personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The respondent argued that since the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notices, there was no necessity to grant a personal hearing.
Held
The Court held that the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, require an opportunity of personal hearing to be afforded to the party, either upon written request or when the authority contemplates an adverse order. The Court referred to a coordinate bench's decision in M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner, which interpreted Section 75(4) and held that an adverse order cannot be passed without granting a personal hearing. In that case, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authority. The learned State counsel conceded that the issue was concluded by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, following the precedent, the Court found that the impugned order was passed in violation of the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.10.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, is liable to be quashed for violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided before passing the impugned order. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that show cause notices were duly issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, thus obviating the need for a personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:8911-DB 1
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 825 of 2025 7th October, 2025
Mohammad Adil
…….Petitioner Versus
Assistant Commissioner ……Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing Reference No.ZD0510220052358 and dated 21.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-1); (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice bearing Reference No.ZD050622002077W and dated 06.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-2); (c) Issue a writ, order or direction i
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.