Natural justice in GST adjudication requires a meaningful personal hearing; writ interference was justified despite an alternate remedy.

An adjudication order under GST law cannot stand where it is passed without a meaningful personal hearing and without affording a proper to file a fresh reply, as this violates natural justice. The availability of an alternate remedy does not bar writ interference where the procedural defect goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured by appeal. The HC quashed the order and remanded the dispute to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after granting hearing and passing a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained when the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing, and whether the writ court should interfere despite the availability of an alternate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned adjudication order was found to be materially similar to an earlier decision of the Court where denial of a meaningful personal hearing before passing an adverse order was treated as contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice. The record showed that the petitioner had not been granted a proper opportunity to file a fresh reply and be heard before the order was passed. In these circumstances, the bar of alternate remedy was held inapplicable because insisting on it would not cure the procedural defect and the appellate authority was not an adequate forum for remand in such a case.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was quashed. The matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority to permit a fresh reply, grant a hearing, and pass a reasoned order.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining setting aside of the adverse GST adjudication order, with the controversy restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after observance of due process.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order under the GST law cannot be sustained where it is passed in violation of the mandatory requirement of affording a meaningful personal hearing, and the availability of an alternate remedy does not bar writ interference in such a case.

---