Madras High Court
Administrative and Public LawTax Law

A same-day hearing notice that affords no meaningful opportunity violates natural justice.

SRI LAKSHMI SARASWATHI IMPEEX INDIA LIMITED vs STATE TAX OFFICER

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A same-day hearing notice that affords no meaningful opportunity violates natural justice.. SRI LAKSHMI SARASWATHI IMPEEX INDIA LIMITED vs STATE TAX OFFICER. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged four orders in Form GST DRC-07, all dated 27 March 2026, concerning assessment years 2020–21 to 2023–24.

Source reference: pp. 1–2

The personal hearing had been fixed for 24 March 2026 at 11:30 a.m. Although the notice was sent by RPAD on 20 March, the petitioner received it only on the scheduled hearing date and did not attend; the orders were thereafter passed without a personal hearing.

Source reference: pp. 3–5

The petitioner confined its submissions to the denial of a hearing and stated it was willing to pay 5% of the disputed tax in each petition as a condition for remand. The respondent’s counsel acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
02

Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, passed without a personal hearing after the notice was received on the hearing date, violated the principles of natural justice.

Source reference: pp. 3–5

2. Whether the impugned orders should be set aside and the matters remanded subject to the petitioner paying 5% of the disputed tax in each petition.

Source reference: p. 5
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the principle of natural justice that a party must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

A hearing notice received on the date fixed for the hearing, leaving the recipient unable to attend, did not provide that opportunity in the circumstances of this case. The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent as the basis for this rule.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
04

Reasoning

The petitioner received the hearing notice only on 24 March 2026, the very date on which the hearing was scheduled, and was therefore unable to appear. The respondent admitted that no personal hearing was provided before the orders were made.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

The Court held that, in these circumstances, the orders were passed in violation of natural justice and were not sustainable in law. Given the petitioner’s offer to pay 5% of the disputed tax, the Court made payment a condition of setting aside the orders and remanding the matters.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
05

Holding

The Court set aside the orders dated 27 March 2026 and remanded the matters for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 5% of the disputed tax in each petition within four weeks of receiving the order; setting aside would take effect from the date of payment.

The petitioner must file its reply or objections and supporting documents within three weeks after payment. The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

Source reference: p. 5

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Source reference: p. 6
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI LAKSHMI SARASWATHI IMPEEX INDIA LIMITEDvsSTATE TAX OFFICER

Madras High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment