Even today is too late to come out from stupidity.

While starting this write up, the word stupidity was carefully chosen as I found this word as most appropriate one when I read an order of the Gujarat High Court dated 16/10/2026 in Civil Application number 14717 of 2026 in the matter of MUSTUFAMIYA HUSSAINMIYA SHAIKH PROPRIETOR OF M/s MUSTUFA SALES AGENCY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. - 2026 (10) TMI 1462 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT. The beauty of this case is that three different personal hearing notices were issued on 16/04/2026 as detailed below. The personal hearings are in gross violation of section 75 (4) read with 75 (5) as the proper officer has not properly understood the legislative intent of the above two sub sections 4 and 5 of section 75 of the CGST Act.

The officer granted three personal hearing opportunities on three different days within two minutes on 16/04/2026

As the above facts were on record, department could not deny the fact that the personal hearing dates were decided on the same day that too within two minutes. The division bench was shocked to observer that for a single taxpayer, on a single day, how the system allows to issue three different notices with three different numbers. The best part is that the Chief Commissioner, being the highest authority under State Taxes is require ed to answer on 26/10/2026.

The two paras which may be applicable in several other cases as well are as below :

4. In view of the aforesaid facts, we direct the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, being the highest authority to file a report on the functioning of the portal and the process of allowing the competent officer to generate notices on the same date by intimating three different dates of personal hearings to the petitioner. Such report shall be filed by the next date of hearing, failing which, the Court would be constrained to pass strictures against the authorities, who has manipulated the system by generating three notices in an interval of almost two minutes intimating the petitioner three different personal hearing dates and with different times.

5. Registry is directed to intimate the present order to all the three respondents. Meanwhile, we direct the appellate authority to pass a fresh appellate order which shall be placed on the next date of hearing.

6. ORDER DATED: 16/10/2026 We clarify that in case the explanation is found unsatisfactory, an exemplary costs shall be imposed on the erring officer.

I sincerely wish that on each and every violation of a statutory provision by a tax official, the GSTAT as well as the High Court must pass strictures as well as impose cost in an appropriate manner so as to ensure that the adjudicating officer as well as the first appellate authority are made accountable as well as answerable for any improper administration of law like the one above.

75 (4) stipulates that personal hearing is a must when the taxpayer opts for the same. Even when the taxpayer has not specifically requested for such hearings, as and when the authority contemplate any adverse decision, personal hearing is required. In a like manner, 75 (5) provides that (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.

It appears that the officer has believed that by randomly choosing three different dates, that too within a gap of just one week, the requirements of 75 (4) as well as 75 (5) are fulfilled. The outcome of the final decision in this case is more important as this is the climax of this episode.

Every day we come across at least ten cases where the OIO is being passed without any personal hearing in gross violation of natural justice. The Rajasthan High Court (DB) on 12/10/2026 in the matter of Bihari Lal Sharma in WP (C) 24272 of 2026 ruled as :

7. Since the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as provided under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for hearing and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

This is not a isolated case and the GSTAT has started setting aside the OIO or OIA where the opportunity of personal hearing was not granted. It is in the interest of the tax officials this write up is made so that all officers all over India may come to know that there is a limit for everything and the Tribunals as well as Jurisdictional High Courts shall not be a silent spectator any more. By taking clue from the above as well as other similar orders of high courts wherein the high court come down heavily on the tax official by way of strictures as well as imposing cost etc., the time to change was yesterday itself and as it did not happen, let them make it as today.

Out of the 485 orders passed by GSTAT benches till 20/10/2026, an estimated 100 cases are only in favour of Revenue. A majority of the orders are in favour of the taxpayers. By improving the quality of adjudication as well as orders passed in first appeal level, the cases before GSTAT could easily be reduced as now it is only a guess work for adjudicating authority on all the decided issues. Let the adjudication officer decide for himself as to whether he is interested in OIO getting set aside later or sustained at all levels.