Case Details: Jay Jalaram Mandap Decorators vs. Deputy Commissioner (2025) 34 Centax 390 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, Ld. Sr Adv. & Pratik K Khubchandani, for the Petitioner
- Shri Utkarsh Sharma, AGP, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under GST, was issued a show-cause notice proposing to raise demand. The Adjudicating Authority fixed a date of personal hearing as indicated in the notice; however, the petitioner could not attend since the proprietor was undergoing medical treatment during that time. Despite being informed of these circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting any adjournment. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and was non-speaking in nature. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s statutory right to be heard under section 75(4) of the GST Act had been denied. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court held
The High Court held that the impugned adjudication order was invalid as it was passed without granting any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court observed that the Adjudicating Authority was statutorily bound under section 75(4) of the GST Act to provide an opportunity of personal hearing whenever a request for adjournment is made or when adverse decisions are contemplated. It was noted that passing an order during the period of the proprietor’s medical incapacity amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice and rendered the order non-speaking. The Court accordingly set aside both the adjudication and appellate orders and remanded the matter for fresh de novo adjudication.
