Unsetting of the settled issues under GST Laws. Part two.

Unsetting of the settled issues under GST Laws. Part two.

Incidentally as well as interestingly, I came across one more case where the State Tax Officer from Delhi violated three sections in one go. The tax payer preferred a writ before the Delhi High Court where the High Court has quashed and set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Though the decision of the Delhi High Court was wholly in favour of the taxpayer, as the taxpayer had an apprehension that this may be a cycle wherein the demand may again be confirmed, preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court on 20/05/2026 ruled that no intervention is needed as the High Court order is the right one.

The issue arose due to appointment of special auditor under section 66 on 06/12/2024. This was followed by demand notice dated 11/09/2025. The dispute pertains to the financial year 2021-22 and notice was issued under section 73. Accordingly, the last date for issuing SCN was 30/09/2025 and the last date for passing the OIO was 31/12/2025. Hence the officer was in a great hurry and the SCN which was issued on 24/09/2025 was adjudicated on 31/12/2025. The core issues are two. The SCN issued on 24/09/2025 was the second one for the same financial year. Moreover, personal hearing was posted on 30/12/2025 which was informed to the taxpayer on 27/12/2025conly leaving hardly one working day. Above all section 66(4), section 75(4) as well as 75(5) were violated in one go.

66(4): The company was covered under special audit in line with section 66 and up on receipt of the report, even without affording an opportunity to the taxpayer to offer his views in line with sub section (4) of section 66, the issue was handled in a hurried manner keeping the deadline date of 31/12/2025 in mind and the High Court has observer that this is impermissible.

75(4) on personal hearing request as well as section 75(5) on adjournments were held to be mandatory requirements and not a mere formality and personal hearing must be effective one.

The operative portions of the High Court order are as below:

33. This Court also finds merit in the contention of the petitioner that the OIO has been passed with undue haste. The personal hearing concluded on 31.12.2025 and the OIO has been passed on the very same date, confirming a substantial liability. In the facts of the present case, such haste raises a legitimate apprehension that the material placed on record may not have been adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

34. The contention of the respondent regarding availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act does not merit acceptance in the present case. It is well settled that where an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the existence of an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

35. That being so, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned OIO dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent.

36. We remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication, as a matter of last chance. We permit the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority on 06.04.2026 with its written notes of arguments, if any, along with documents sought by the respondent department.

37. We expect the respondent to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and deal with all contentions raised by the petitioner including the ones raised in the present petition, with due regard to the principles of natural justice.

38. Let the decision be taken expeditiously and communicated to the petitioner'.

Case Reference: 2026 (4) TMI 421 Delhi High Court in the matter of Avik Televentures (p) Limited vide order dated 30/03/2026. This is the second case by Delhi GST officials the first article being from the State Tax officials from Punjab. The basic requirements on natural justice itself is violated in this case where the High Court has held that when the opportunity of personal haring is either not granted or not an effective hearing, writ is entertainable and the order is liable to be quashed. This is a good point which all taxpayers whomsoever had so far received OIO without personal hearing may note for further course of action.

It is concluded that the quasi- judicial officers all over India must respect the intention of the legislature and must pass orders in such a manner that the order stands when tested at the higher forum such as GSTAT or High Court as the case may be.