Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the order dated 5 January 2026 and the consequential rectification order passed under Section 74A(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that, after issuance of the notice dated 11 November 2025, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted despite Section 75(4), which mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The Revenue argued that a hearing had previously been granted on 16 October 2025; however, the petitioner pointed out that such hearing related to a different issue concerning mismatch of input tax credit and was not pursuant to the impugned notice.

Issue:
Whether an adjudication order under Section 74A could be sustained when no opportunity of hearing was granted after issuance of the relevant notice, and whether the order could be passed before expiry of the statutory 60-day period available to the taxpayer under Section 74A(8)(ii) to discharge tax and interest and obtain conclusion of proceedings without penalty.

Held:
The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order and rectification order. The Court held that the hearing granted on 16 October 2025 in relation to a different matter could not substitute the hearing contemplated under Section 75(4) after issuance of the notice dated 11 November 2025. Since the notice itself indicated that personal hearing was not applicable, the order imposing adverse liabilities was passed in clear breach of the statutory requirement of hearing and principles of natural justice.

Further, Section 74A(8)(ii) provides a 60-day window from issuance of the show cause notice for payment of tax along with applicable interest, upon which no penalty is payable and proceedings are deemed concluded. Since the notice was issued on 11 November 2025, the 60-day period had not expired when the order was passed on 5 January 2026.

The Court therefore found the order to be contrary to the statutory scheme. It rejected the Revenue’s objection that the petitioner should first pursue the appellate remedy under Section 107, observing that a writ petition is maintainable where an order is passed in breach of natural justice or statutory provisions or suffers from an apparent error.

The Court also imposed litigation costs of ₹50,000 on the concerned officer, with liberty to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to recover the costs from the officer who passed the orders.

An adjudicating authority cannot deny personal hearing merely because an earlier hearing was granted on a different issue. Further, where Section 74A(8)(ii) grants the taxpayer 60 days from the SCN to pay tax and interest without penalty, the adjudication order should not be passed before expiry of that statutory window.

Case Name: Hind Maha Mineral LLP Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Goods and Services Tax, Mumbai and others dated 04.09.2026

Citation No. 2026 Taxo.online 2664