Dream Realinfra Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Dream Realinfra Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court seeking to quash an order in original (FORM GST DRC-07) dated 17.08.2023 and a show cause notice (FORM GST DRC-01) dated 01.04.2023, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent). The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by disregarding the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. The State argued that show cause notices were issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, thus negating the need for a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the issue regarding the mandatory nature of an opportunity for personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, has been conclusively decided by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the case of M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner (WPMB No. 316 of 2025, decided on 05.06.2025). The Coordinate Bench had observed that the scheme of the Act mandates a personal hearing when an authority contemplates an adverse order against a party. In the present case, the latter circumstance was applicable, and the Assessing Authority ought to have complied with Section 75(4). Following this precedent, the Court found that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the authority for reconsideration in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court noted that the learned State counsel fairly conceded that the issue was concluded by the aforementioned judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in original, bearing Reference No.ZD050823010292U dated 17.08.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates providing an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, by failing to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. Revenue's Contention: The State contended that show cause notices were duly issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to respond to them. Therefore, according to the State, there was no occasion to afford a personal hearing.