Top Stories Bombay High Court sets aside GST Order due to Improper Service of Notice u/s 37C (1) of CGST Act [Read Order] The Bombay High Court held that the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing, are foundational to any adjudicatory process, and procedural lapses cannot be overlooked By Eeva Mary Sanil – On January 20, 2025 4:30 pm – 2 mins read

The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, set aside an Order-in-Original ( O-I-O ) issued against the petitioner, Champions Steel Industries Private Limited, citing procedural lapses in the service of notices. The petitioner, Champions Steel Industries Private Limited, challenged a show cause notice dated 23-12-2020 and the subsequent O-I-O dated 27-02-2021 issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence ( DGGI ). The primary argument was the improper service of notices at incorrect addresses, which the petitioner argued violated their right to a fair hearing. The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice and other communications were sent to an address that did not belong to the company. According to the petitioner, this procedural lapse violated their right to a fair hearing under the principles of natural justice. Transform GST Learning: Master Sections Faster with Memory Power- Click here to know more

The High Court conducted a detailed examination of the documents submitted by both parties and observed the discrepancies in the service of notices. The petitioner’s registered address, as recorded in official documents, is “A/3, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400009.” This address was shown in the original show cause notice issued in July 2020. However, a personal hearing notice 23-02-2021, was sent to an entirely different address in Pydhonie, Mumbai, with errors in both the pin code and the location. The Court observed that notices, including the O-I-O, were sent to the Pydhonie address, which was unrelated to the petitioner.

The respondents failed to prove any connection between this address and the petitioner’s business. The respondents submitted  that the notices were not returned undelivered and, therefore, should be presumed to have been validly served. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that valid service requires delivery to the correct address, and procedural compliance cannot be bypassed on such presumptions. The court noted that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to participate in the adjudication process due to the failure of the respondents to serve notices at the correct address. Such a lapse, the court held, strikes at the very foundation of fairness in adjudication.

A two-member bench comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain quashed the O-I-O. It also remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The court specifically directed the respondents to ensure that all future notices and communications are sent to the petitioner’s correct address at “A/3, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400009” or their registered email ID. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE