Ms Poddar Ispat Private Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Poddar Ispat Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.05.2025 and related notices, including a show cause notice dated 15.01.2025 and DRC-01 dated 04.02.2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (A), the respondent. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were vitiated by gross procedural irregularities, specifically the denial of a personal hearing and the passing of a non-speaking adjudication order, rendering the demand legally unsustainable. The petitioner also argued that the issue was covered by a previous High Court order in a similar case. The respondent acknowledged that the present petition could be disposed of in terms of the cited order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was vitiated by gross procedural irregularities, specifically the denial of an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner. Relying on its previous decision in Writ Petition (M/B) 316 of 2025, which was also cited by the respondent, the Court found that the authorities had failed to comply with the mandate of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. This section requires an opportunity of personal hearing to be given when an adverse decision is contemplated against a person, even in the absence of a written request. The Court reiterated the legal principle that when a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing a thing, it must be done in that way or not at all. The impugned order, which resulted in civil consequences for the petitioner, was passed without affording this mandatory opportunity. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the competent authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.05.2025, along with the related show cause notice and DRC-01, are vitiated by gross procedural irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the CGST Act and Rules, specifically concerning the denial of an opportunity for personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned order were flawed due to procedural irregularities. They emphasized the denial of a personal hearing and the issuance of a mechanical, non-speaking adjudication order, which they contended made the demand legally unsustainable. The petitioner further relied on a previous High Court judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) 316 of 2025, M/S Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner and another, decided on 05.06.2025, arguing that the present case was covered by its findings. Respondents' Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition (M/B) 316 of 2025. The judgment cited by the respondent also discussed the implications of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act regarding the mandatory opportunity for personal hearing.