AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 288 wordsManoj Kumar Gupta, CJ
The present writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated 29.05.2025, passed by respondent no.3-the adjudicating authority under Section 73 (1) of C.G.S.T./ S.G.S.T. Act, 2017 read with Section 122.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, in his reply submitted in DRC-6 in response to Show Cause Notice, specifically prayed for being given opportunity of personal hearing, however the impugned adjudication order has been passed without giving any opportunity of personal hearing.
As the order recites that it has been passed on basis of submissions made during hearing, we granted opportunity to counsel for the Revenue to obtain specific instructions in this behalf by our previous order dated 24.03.2026.
On matter being taken up today, Ms. Pooja Banga, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on instructions, admits that no specific date was intimated to the petitioner for personal hearing.
In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the order impugned has been passed in violation of Section 75 (4) of the Act and, therefore, it is un- sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. Since the matter relates to financial year 2021-22, therefore, we deem it proper to fix a date, on which, the petitioner may be granted personal hearing so that the matter does not get delayed any further.
Accordingly, we hereby provide that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.3 on 9th April, 2026 and on which date, the petitioner will be provided personal hearing and, thereafter it shall be open to respondent no. 3 to pass fresh order.
The petition stands disposed of.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.