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
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
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
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
