Impugned tax order set aside for lack of reasonable hearing subject to conditional pre-deposit.

The petitioner, a proprietary concern, challenged an assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) dated 19.11.2025 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the GST Act.

The petitioner contended that the order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

Following the expiry of the limitation period, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order, stay recovery proceedings, and lift bank attachments.

1. Whether the impugned assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of a reasonable hearing.

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration subject to a conditional deposit of the disputed tax demand.

Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, which governs the determination of tax not paid or short paid.

Principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of providing a "reasonable opportunity" of being heard before an adverse order is passed.

Discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside orders involving procedural irregularities, often conditioned upon a pre-deposit.

The Court observed from the records that the respondent issued the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 without granting the petitioner an oral hearing.

While noting that the writ petition was filed shortly after the limitation period expired, the Court sought to rectify the procedural lapse regarding the lack of opportunity.

During proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel offered to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand to demonstrate bona fides for a remand.

The Court accepted this endorsement as a sufficient safeguard for the revenue while ensuring the petitioner receives a decision on merits.

The holding was made subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days.

Upon such remittance, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months.

All recovery proceedings and bank attachments pursuant to the original order were effectively stayed pending this fresh adjudication.