In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice under GST law, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an adjudication order holding that failure to provide proper notice for personal hearing renders the proceedings invalid.
The Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Sections 73(9), 50, and 122(2)(a) of the CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner contended that despite specifically requesting a personal hearing in replies dated 11.12.2025 and 26.12.2025, no such opportunity was granted before passing the adverse order.
During the course of proceedings, the department claimed that the petitioner had been asked to appear for personal hearing on two occasions. However, the Court noted that no documentary evidence was produced to establish that any such hearing notices were ever communicated to the petitioner. The instructions furnished by the department were termed “vague” and even “misleading,” prompting the Court to caution the concerned अधिकारी against submitting such unsupported claims in future.
On the final hearing, the State counsel fairly conceded that no written notice had been issued to the petitioner intimating any date of personal hearing. Taking note of this admission, the Court held that the impugned order was passed in clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which mandates granting an opportunity of personal hearing where requested.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The Court directed that a proper opportunity of hearing be afforded to the petitioner before passing any new order.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Brijbihari Concast Private Ltd. Versus State Tax SGST and Another
Citation: JURISHOUR-852-HC-2026(Ker)
Case No.: Writ Petition (M/B) No.183 of 2026
Date: 16/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Priya Bhowmik
Counsel For Respondent: Puja Banga
