GST adjudicators must consider acknowledged manual replies; non-consideration violates natural justice.

The petitioner, a GST-registered works contractor, challenged a demand-cum-show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Acts and the resulting Order-in-Original dated 4 February 2026.

At a personal hearing on 27 January 2026, the petitioner submitted a written reply, which the Superintendent acknowledged, and was permitted to furnish further documents by 13 February 2026.

The Superintendent nevertheless passed the Order-in-Original on 4 February, stating that no reply had been filed and that the petitioner had not appeared for hearing.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227, alleging breach of natural justice and non-consideration of the reply; the Department relied on the statutory appellate remedy.

1. Whether the Superintendent’s failure to consider the petitioner’s manually submitted and acknowledged reply, before making the order, violated the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the availability of a statutory appeal precluded the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the circumstances.

3. Whether the Superintendent had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74, including whether the statutory grounds for invoking that provision were established.

Section 74(9) of the CGST/OGST Acts requires the Proper Officer to consider the person’s representation before determining tax, interest and penalty; Rule 142(4) prescribes Form GST DRC-06 for a reply but does not make electronic filing an absolute bar to considering a manually submitted reply that is on the record.

Administrative decisions affecting rights must comply with audi alteram partem; failure to consider a received defence may invalidate the decision for breach of natural justice.

Under Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., an alternative remedy ordinarily weighs against writ intervention, but exceptions include violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to GR Infra Projects Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Union of India for the principle that Section 74 allegations must rest on foundational facts and not merely the mechanical recital of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.

The Superintendent had acknowledged the petitioner’s reply on 27 January, yet the Order-in-Original proceeded on the contrary premise that no reply had been filed and no hearing attended.

The Court held that the reply’s manual filing did not excuse its non-consideration, particularly where the officer had received it; moreover, the order was passed before the date allowed for filing further documents.

This failure breached natural justice and justified writ intervention notwithstanding the statutory appeal.

The Court did not decide the separate challenge to the Superintendent’s jurisdiction or the merits of the Section 74 proceedings, leaving those matters for consideration on remand.

The petitioner was granted liberty to raise available objections and submit supporting material, and directed to appear within fifteen days of receiving the certified judgment; the authority was directed to conclude the proceedings within eight weeks of that appearance.

The Court expressed no opinion on jurisdiction or the merits, and made no order as to costs.