Truncated timelines for responding to notices render a hearing illusory, violating principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, a mobile phone trading company, was subjected to a special audit under Section 66 of the CGST/DGST Act for FY 2021-22

Following a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 24.09.2025, the Petitioner submitted its reply on 24.10.2025

On 27.12.2025 (a Saturday evening), the Respondent issued "Reminder-1," requiring additional documents by 29.12.2025 and a personal hearing on 30.12.2025

The Petitioner's request for a seven-day adjournment was ignored, and the Respondent passed the Order-in-Original (OIO) on 31.12.2025, confirming a liability of approximately Rs. 26.72 Crores

The Petitioner challenged the OIO on grounds of violation of natural justice and parallel proceedings for the same period

The court applied Sections 66(4), 75(4), and 75(5) of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017, which mandate that an opportunity of hearing must be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated or a request for such hearing is made

Section 73(10) regarding the limitation period for passing orders

The established principle of Administrative Law that the availability of an alternate remedy (Section 107) does not operate as a bar to writ jurisdiction if the impugned order is passed in manifest violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court observed that the Respondent issued "Reminder-1" on a Saturday evening, leaving the Petitioner with less than one effective working day (as the next day was a Sunday) to collate voluminous records and bank statements

The Court determined that the opportunity afforded was "illusory" and "truncated," as the timeline did not allow for a reasonable or effective response to the special audit findings

It further noted that the OIO was passed with "undue haste" on the very same day the personal hearing concluded (31.12.2025), coinciding with the expiry of the limitation period under Section 73(10)

The Court reasoned that mere participation in a hearing does not equate to compliance with natural justice if the party is deprived of adequate time to present its case

It held that the violation of natural justice justified bypassing the alternate remedy under Section 107

The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the Petitioner to appear on 06.04.2026 with written arguments and the requested documents

The Court ordered the Respondent to pass a reasoned decision expeditiously while keeping all legal remedies open for the parties