Gujarat High Court
Star Metal Through Prop. Vinayak Sunil ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 November, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14741/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14741 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
STAR METAL THROUGH PROP. VINAYAK SUNIL SHINDE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
ANANDODAYA S MISHRA(8038) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HIMANSHI S PATWA(12754) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUNJAL SHAH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Himanshi Patwa for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the
respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14741/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
of the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved, which is in a
narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Himanshi Patwa appearing
for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported
in 2025 (100) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C) [Civil Appeal No. 9764 of 2025
decided on 24.07.2025] and has submitted that the issue raised in
the present writ petition is squarely covered, more particularly, the
observations made in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21. Learned advocate
Ms. Patwa has also referred to the impugned order and submitted
that the petitioner was not granted opportunity of personal hearing
and the said order is bereft of any finding in this regard. Moreover,
she has submitted that Form GST DRC-07 was never issued to the
petitioner and on this ground, the impugned order may be set aside.
5. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Shrunjal Shah appearing for the respondent has fairly submitted that
the though the submissions are advanced by the petitioner however,
the order does not reflect that personal hearing is granted. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14741/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
she further submitted that if required, the respondent will issue
Form GST DRC-07 to the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and more particularly when the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2
does not in any manner reflect that the personal hearing has been
granted to the petitioner and also in wake of the fact that the
respondent have not issued Form DRC-07, the case of the petitioner
would get squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of
ASP Traders (supra). The relevant observations made in
paragraphs 19, 20, 21 are extracted hereunder :-
19. Therefore, even assuming that the payment was made by the
appellant, voluntarily or otherwise, the proper officer could not
be absolved of the statutory obligation to pass a reasoned order
in Form GST MOV-09 and upload the corresponding summary in
Form GST DRC-07. Compliance with these procedural
requirements is essential not only for ensuring transparency and
accountability in tax administration, but also for safeguarding the
taxpayer's appellate rights under the CGST Act, 2017. Such
adherence is in consonance with the constitutional mandate
under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, and taking into account
that objections were filed, payment was stated to have been
made under protest due to business exigencies, and the appellant
seeks to challenge the levy, the proper officer was under a clear
statutory obligation to pass a final order under section 129(3) in
Form GST MOV-09 and DRC-07. The refusal by the High Court to
direct the passing of such an order, has the effect of frustrating
the appellant's statutory right to appeal and is contrary to well
established legal principles governing tax adjudication and
procedural fairness.
21. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the High Court is
set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a reasoned final
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14741/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
order under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, in Form GST
MOV-09, after granting an opportunity of being heard as
mandated under Section 129(4), and upload the summary thereof
in Form GST DRC-07 within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, it shall be open
to the appellant to pursue appropriate legal remedies against
such order, in accordance with law."
7. The present writ petition succeeds in light of the observations
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall grant personal
hearing to the petitioner and after considering the submissions
advanced by the petitioner, fresh order shall be passed in accordance
with law. We also further direct that the respondent shall issue Form
DRC-07 to the petitioner.
8. Such exercise shall be completed within twelve (12) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute
to the above extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni/Sup.5
