ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Darshan Gandhi appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Pooja Ashar for the respondents.

2 Since short issue is involved, with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken upfor final hearing and final disposal today.

3 Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Pooja Ashar, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

4 By way of present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order passed under Section 73 of the Central / State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short), as well as the Appellate Order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Form GST APL-02 under Section 107 of the Act by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” for short), rejecting the statutory appeal as time barred and the petitioner has further sought for the direction to the respondent authority to de novo adjudicate the proceedings for the Assessment Year 2019-20.

5 The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

5.1 The petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of manufacturing wooden doors, wooden windows, wooden frames etc., and has obtained its registration on 06.07.2018 under the provisions of the Act.

5.2 The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 73 of the Act by issuing and intimation of discrepancies in Form GST DRC-01A with respect to the Financial Year 2019-20 alleging that the Input Tax Credit (for short “ITC”) claimed by the petitioner did not match with the ITC in GSTR-2A.

5.3 Subsequent to the petitioner’s reply, the respondent issued a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC -01 on 29.05.2024 proposing the demand of Rs.10,51,322/- as tax, interest and penalty for the excess claim of ITC. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply in Form GST DRC-06 on 29.06.2024. However, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Assessment Order under the provisions of Section 73(9) of the Act on 30.08.2024 in Form GST DRC-07.

5.4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act by filing Form GST APL- 01 on 28.12.2024. The petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the delay of approximately 25 days that occurred in filing of the statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority, by way of impugned order dated 29.08.2025 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and also holding that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of three months under Section 107(1) of the Act and further observed that the reason for delay given by the petitioner that he was not able to decide as to whether or not to take the benefit of the GST Amnesty Scheme or file an appeal was not properly explained by the petitioner and in wake of such observations, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation which has now culminated into filing of the present writ petition.

6 Mr.Darshan Gandhi learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted while placing reliance on a judgement in the case of Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs. Union of India (2021) 124 taxmann.com 480 (Guj.), learned advocate Mr.Gandhi, submitted that it is categorically held in the said judgement that any adverse order passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act, would violate the principles of natural justice thereby requiring setting aside of the impugned order. In the instant case, the petitioner was denied the statutory right of personal hearing and hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed solely on this ground.

6.1 It was submitted by Mr.Gandhi, that the Appellate Authority has mechanically rejected the appeal as time- barred, ignoring the short delay of 25 days whi