Bombay High Court Quashes GST Order Passed Without Personal Hearing
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Hind Maha Mineral LLP Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Goods and Services Tax, Mumbai and others, set aside an order passed under Section 74A(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the rectification order of the same date.
Case: Hind Maha Mineral LLP Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2973/2026
Coram: Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta
Date: 04 September 2026
Background
The petitioner challenged the order dated 05 January 2026 passed under Section 74A(5) and the rectification order passed on the same date. Its principal contention was that after issuance of the notice, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted as required under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.
The Court recorded that the relevant notice had been issued on 11 November 2025 and that no personal hearing was granted thereafter. The notice itself indicated that personal hearing was “not applicable.”
Personal Hearing Mandatory Where Adverse Decision Is Contemplated
Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where it is requested in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty.
The High Court found that the impugned order involved adverse consequences, including penalty, and had nevertheless been passed without granting the petitioner a hearing. The order was therefore held to be unsustainable.
Order Passed Before Expiry of Statutory 60-Day Period
The Court also examined Section 74A(8)(ii), under which the person concerned may pay the tax together with applicable interest within 60 days of issuance of the show cause notice, in which event no penalty is payable and the proceedings relating to the notice are deemed concluded.
The Court found that the adjudication order dated 05 January 2026 had been passed before expiry of the applicable 60-day period. The respondents also acknowledged before the Court that the order had been passed within that period.
Alternative Remedy Did Not Bar Writ Petition
The respondents argued that the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy under Section 107. The High Court, however, observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised where an order is passed in breach of natural justice, contrary to statutory provisions, or suffers from an apparent error.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 05 January 2026 and the rectification order of the same date.
The Court further directed respondent No.3 to pay ₹50,000 as litigation costs to the petitioner within two weeks. It also permitted respondent Nos.1 and 2 to recover the amount from the officer who had passed the impugned orders.
Key Takeaway
A GST adjudication order contemplating adverse consequences cannot be sustained where the taxpayer is denied the personal hearing mandated by Section 75(4). Further, an order under Section 74A cannot defeat the statutory opportunity available to the taxpayer during the prescribed 60-day period under Section 74A(8)(ii).
