The Bombay High Court has quashed a GST demand order and taken the unusual step of imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent-authority — to be recovered from the erring officer personally — for passing an order under Section 74A(5) in patent breach of two statutory safeguards. The ruling by Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta in Hind Maha Mineral LLP v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 2973/2026, decided 04.09.2026) identifies a twin violation that practitioners should watch for in early Section 74A adjudications.
The first violation was procedural: no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner despite Section 75(4) mandating one where any adverse decision is contemplated. The show cause notice itself stated that "personal hearing is not applicable." While the Revenue argued that a hearing was given on 16th October, 2025, the court noted this pertained to a different matter and no hearing was afforded after the SCN was issued on 11th November, 2025. The second violation was substantive: the order was passed on 5th January, 2026 — within the 60-day window under Section 74A(8)(ii) that allows the taxpayer to pay tax and interest to avoid penalty. The 60-day period from the SCN date of 11.11.2025 would have expired on 10.01.2026, but the authority passed the order five days before that deadline, effectively denying the petitioner the statutory opportunity to settle.
The court rejected the Revenue's objection that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority under Section 107, holding that where an order is passed in breach of natural justice or in breach of statutory provisions, the writ court's jurisdiction is attracted. The court directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to recover the costs from the officer who passed the orders — a pointed signal to field-level officers that premature or procedurally deficient Section 74A adjudications will attract personal consequences.
2026-juristway.com-1144-HC(Bombay)-GST | High Court of Bombay | Writ Petition No. 2973/2026 | 04.09.2026