Vacmet INDIA Limited Represented By Its Director Commercial Sh Pradeep Kumar Agarwal vs. Joint Commiccioner Of State Tax Ratlam Diviaion Indore Zone
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and subsection (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. The reasoning was based on the observation that the date of personal hearing was fixed prior to the last date for filing a reply to the show cause notice, which did not provide the petitioner with adequate opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court granted liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, provided it is a reasoned and speaking order, if they are so advised. No specific tax amount in dispute was mentioned or decided upon.
Facts
The petitioner, Vacmet India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ratlam Division, Indore Zone. This order, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), confirmed a tax demand. The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated. The respondent/State filed a reply, but the Court noted that the date of personal hearing was fixed prior to the last date for filing a reply to the show cause notice. This procedural irregularity was highlighted as a violation of subsection (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ratlam Division, Indore Zone, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and specific provisions of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the procedure followed by the respondent violated the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the date for personal hearing was granted even before the last date for filing a reply to the show cause notice had expired, thereby not allowing sufficient time for a proper response. This was also argued to be a contravention of subsection (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent/State filed a reply, but the Court's observation regarding the personal hearing date suggests that the arguments presented by the State in their reply did not adequately address or refute the petitioner's procedural objections.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The instant petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the respondent under the provision of Section 73 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'the CGST Act') confirming the tax demand.
Counsel for the respondent/State was directed to seek instructions.
The reply was filed however, from the reply, we find that the date of personal hearing was given even prior to the last date of filing of the reply to the show cause notice. Prima-facie, we find that the provisions of sub- section (4) of Section 75 of CGST Act, 2017 has not been complied with and further, the same is in violation of the prin
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.