ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1 Rule.

Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is in narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final hearing and final disposal today.

2 By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.11.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 under the provisions of Section 74 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).

3 The brief facts leading to the filing writ petition is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of bitumen trading and import and is a registered person under the Act. The petitioner was given an intimation under Form GST DRC-01 A on 25.06.2025 for the Financial Year 2018-19, proposing payment under Section 74(5) of the Act.

3.1 The DRC-01A quantified alleged tax liability at the intimation stage itself as IGST Rs.1,30,43,621/- and also proposed interest and 15% penalty. The petitioner disputed the very foundation of the allegation, including the invocation of Section 74 of the Act at the pre-notice stage.

3.2 On 25.06.2025, the petitioner submitted reply in Part B to DRC-01A disputing the allegation and the liability proposed. Thereafter, on 27.06.2025, the respondent issued show-cause notice in Form GST DRC -01 bearing reference No. ZD240625120106U for the Financial Year 2018- 19 under Section 74, proposing demand of tax, interest and penalty and fixing timelines for reply and hearing.

3.3 On 03.07.2025, the petitioner filed reply to the show- cause notice in Form GST DRC-06 and uploaded the supporting documents on portal.

3.4 Despite the above, the respondent No.3, passed the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 under Section 74(9) of the Act and issued summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 04.11.2025 bearing Reference No. ZD241125008128U confirming demand and directing payment by 04.12.2025.

4 Heard learned advocate Mr.Punit Juneja appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Tanushree Shrimal for the respondent.

4.1 Learned AGP Ms.Shrimal has submitted that looking to the order sheet, the show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 27.06.2025. While replying to the show-cause notice by filing Form GST DRC-06 dated 03.07.2025, the petitioner has taken option of personal hearing as “No”.

3.2 The stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the option of no personal hearing taken by the petitioner, cannot override the effect of mandate given by the statutory provision in Section 75(4) of the Act.

3.3 It was incumbent upon the authority to follow the mandate of Section 75(4) of the Act and grant opportunity of further hearing. This Court in the decision in the case of M/s. Yadav Trailor Transport Co. Vs. Union of India And Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3027 of 2025, has held as under:

“ 9.1 It has been categorically observed by this Court in the case of Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd (supra), that when three dates had been granted, it would tantamount to adjournments. However, the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Sec.33A of the Act provides for three adjournments, therefore, that would amount to 4 days and 3 adjournments. For ready reference, the observations made by this Court in the case of Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd (supra), are reproduced:

“12. Another aspect of the matter is that by the notice for personal hearing three dates have been fixed and absence of the petitioners on those three dates apepars to have been considered as grant of three adjournments as contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Act. In this regard, it may be noted that sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Act provides for grant of not more than three adjournments, which would envisage four dates of personal hearing and not three dates, as mentioned in the notice for