In two separate matters, the Court held that adjudicating officers cannot pass orders without fixing a personal hearing when the taxpayer has specifically asked for one.
The Bombay High Court has set aside two adjudication orders for breach of Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing where the taxpayer requests it in writing or an adverse decision is contemplated [Apple Aircon Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax; JM Mhatre Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India].
In JM Mhatre Infra, the bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil rejected the State’s argument that no hearing was needed because the petitioner had ticked “No” against personal hearing in Form DRC-06. Following Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the tick was an inadvertent error, since the reply itself specifically asked for a hearing before any decision, and that the officer had adopted a mechanical approach.
In Apple Aircon, the same bench found that the petitioner’s reply dated 07.12.2025 and a follow-up email had both requested a hearing, yet nothing on record showed that a date was ever intimated. The order merely recorded that the taxpayer had not attended to explain its transactions or produce AMC contracts.
In both cases the orders were quashed and the petitioners were directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 19.10.2026. In JM Mhatre Infra, the notice is to be decided within four weeks of that date; in Apple Aircon, the petitioner was directed to produce the documents called for and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
2026-juristway.com-3115-HC(Bombay)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3116-HC(Bombay)-GST
