Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Without Personal Hearing After Submission of Replies — Tvl A D Creation Vs State Tax Officer
Overview
The Madras High Court recently intervened in a GST dispute where an order dated 24.03.2026 was challenged primarily on the ground that the tax authority failed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner after the latter had filed its replies. The Court found merit in the challenge, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration subject to certain conditions. This decision reinforces the fundamental principle of natural justice that requires a personal hearing to be afforded not merely before, but also after, a party submits its written responses to a show cause notice or departmental communication.
Background of the Case: Tvl A D Creation Vs State Tax Officer
The petitioner, Tvl A D Creation, approached the Madras High Court assailing the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer. The principal grievance raised was that even though the petitioner had submitted replies on 27.02.2026 and 24.03.2026, no personal hearing was provided by the adjudicating authority before issuing the impugned order.
Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on a plain reading of the impugned order itself, it was evident that a personal hearing was offered only prior to the submission of replies — and not thereafter. This sequencing was highlighted as a procedural infirmity that vitiated the order.
Key Issues Raised Before the Court
The case involved multiple overlapping legal concerns, which the Court addressed collectively:
1. Absence of Personal Hearing After Replies Were Filed
The petitioner's counsel drew the Court's attention to the fact that while a personal hearing had been scheduled at an earlier stage, no such opportunity was extended once the replies dated 27.02.2026 and 24.03.2026 were on record. The impugned order dated 24.03.2026 was passed without affording any hearing after those replies, which the petitioner contended amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The State's Special Government Pleader (Tax), Ms. G. Dhana Madhri, acknowledged that the personal hearing had been offered in pursuance of the earlier Court order dated 08.12.2025, but maintained that the petitioner had not furnished the relevant documents to establish movement of goods. She also brought to the Court's notice that this was already the second round of litigation involving the same petitioner.