Gujarat High Court
Nehru Foundation For Development ... vs Union Of India on 21 November, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4485/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4485 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
No
✔
==================================================
NEHRU FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPMENT CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT
EDUCATION SOCIETY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SHASHVATA U SHUKLA(8069) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Shashvata U Shukla for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Shashvata Shukla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 20:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4485/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For Short "CGST Act"), only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing to put his defence and reply.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 75(5) of the CGST Act the appropriate officer i.e. the respondent authority was required to grant at least three adjournments to put his defence. However, no date was fixed after the petitioner had sought adjournment as he appeared on 31.10.2023 and requested for grant of more 10 days time to file his defence. Thus, it is urged that the present impugned order may be quashed and set aside by allowing the petitioner.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Shashvata Shukla for the respondent could not controvert the fact that the respondent no. 2 has without providing opportunity of personal hearing, passed the impugned Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 20:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4485/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined order and has fairly pointed out that the matter may be remanded and the respondent no. 2 may be directed to grant opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to file his defence. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla has further submitted that the petitioner shall file such defence within the time limit specified by the respondent no.2.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that the personal hearing had not been granted in the instant case. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, only on the ground of non-granting of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order 08.12.2023, passed by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 shall avail the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to file his defence. It is further directed that no adjournment shall be sought for by the petitioner and none of the observations will come in the way of the parties in finally deciding the matter.
8. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 2 shall pass fresh de novo order after providing opportunity of personal Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 20:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4485/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined hearing to the petitioner and after considering the submissions which may be made by the petitioner in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Since it is noticed by us that the concerned person was suffering from cancer and hence he was unable to file his defence within a period of ten days and in view of the fair proposition of learned advocate Mr. Shukla, the present order is passed.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni/17 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 20:42:42 IST 2025