TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The second topic is violation of principles of natural justice. In this article, it is proposed to discuss five high court case laws which are on the connected issues.
Case 1: The High Court of Allahabad on 16/02/2024 held in the matter of M/s Origin B.R. Digitalsigns Private Ltd. Manglapuri Thru. Authorised Signatory Mr. Himanshu Awasthi Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance, Lucknow And Others - 2024 (2) TMI 858 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT as below:
11. Wherever any person is asked to give his response and the charges are based on certain material and documents then it is mandated that the delinquent should be provided all the material on the basis of which the said charges are framed and by not giving such materials will severely prejudice the case of a person who is asked to respond to the said charges. In the present case not providing copy of the SIB report has severely prejudiced the case of the petitioner and accordingly on this ground alone the proceedings are arbitrary being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
12. In light of the above, the orders dated 19-5-2022 passed by respondent No. 3 as well as the appellate order dated 25-10-2023 passed by respondent No. 2, contained in Annexure No. 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition, are arbitrary and illegal and accordingly set aside.
The above case been selected as it is slightly older so that any officer who pass an order today in Uttar Pradesh could not plead that he is not aware of this, when he passes identical order.
Case 2: The Madras High court on 24/06/2024 in the matter of Tvl. S.S. Metals, Rep by its Proprietor Mr. A. Syed Shikkandar Versus The State Tax Officer, Chennai - 2024 (7) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT made the following observations.
5. The petitioner’s reply is on record. By such reply, the petitioner states that the supplier was carrying on business and that the purchase was genuine. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the reply indicates that the tax invoice, e-way bill, bank statement and ledger account were annexed thereto. The assertion that the ITC availed of by the petitioner is reflected in GSTR 2A is not denied by the respondent.
It is a case of suppliers non payment of GST on subsequent dates not connected with the receiver. Despite the fact that the receiver has established everything that is required to prove the genuineness of all the transactions, including proper reflection in GSTR 2, credit was denied by the adjudicating authority.
Revenue could not prove that the transactions are not genuine one, but knowing these facts perfectly, still denied credit as the supplier was found not paying GST on some other transactions not pertaining to this receiver.
The High Court remanded the case for reconsideration.
Case 3. The Madras High Court on 13/02/2025 in the matter of M/s. Hajee Traders, Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. Hajee Mohamed Basil Ali Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST), Chennai - 2025 (2) TMI 1007 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has handled the case where orders were passed without giving personal hearing. The court passed order as below:
9. As far as the opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, no such opportunity was provided to the petitioner subsequent the filing of reply. As per the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, if the 1st respondent is intend to pass any adverse order, it is mandatory for them to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner subsequent to the filing of reply and prior to the passing of assessment order. However, in this case, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner without providing any such opportunity of personal hearing, which is not only contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, but also in violation of principles of natural justice.
10. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the 1st respondent on terms.
Accordingly, it is evident that section 75 (4) is a powerful section and personal hearing is a must for establishing the principles of natural justice. It is seen that the Courts in India even during the British Rule have given appropriate opportunities to the affected person as seen from the history. Cases are nowadays being decided based on facts as well as legal position only at tribunals, high courts and the supreme court and the officers attached with CBIC/ State often forget their role that it is that of quasi judicial in nature and they should feel proud when the orders passed by them when challenged before the jurisdictional High court is ruled in favor of revenue, which often is not the case.
Case 4: In a similar manner, the division bench of the Delhi High Court on 25/08/2025 in the matter of Dawn Express Courier Del Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. - 2025 (8) TMI 1635 - DELHI HIGH COURT examined in length the principles.
Petitioner argued in para 12. Finally, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the manner in which summons were issued one day before the hearing itself would show that this is a complete non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.
The high court ruled as below:
24. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be afforded a proper 30 days’ time to file a reply to the SCN. There is no jurisdictional challenge to the SCN which warrants the interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction.
25. Let the SCN be replied to by 30th September, 2025. The notice for personal hearing shall be granted to the Petitioner.
After hearing the Petitioner, a detailed reasoned order shall be passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Thus it is again clearly established that order should not be passed by ignoring the principles of natural justice.
Case 5: The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court on 30/01/2026 in the matter of Arpit Advertising Versus Union of India and others. - 2026 (2) TMI 168 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ruled as below:
8. A perusal of the above statutory provision shows that it is mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The department was under a statutory obligation to give a personal hearing to the proprietor/ representative of the petitioner firm especially when wrong documents have been uploaded by the department itself and no detailed SCN was served upon the petitioner by the department.
Though it would be possible to identify similar rulings from each and every jurisdictional high courts in India, due to constraints, it is restricted to five cases only.
Hope this message reaches the concerned so that quality improves from both sides.