Apple Aircon Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Mum Nod E 1301 (Nodal 13, Zone 5), Mumbai
/1636/2026 · 2026-10-14
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19476 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19476 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
15. WP 1636-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1636 OF 2026
Apple Aircon Private Limited … Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Mum-Nod-E-1301 (Nodel-13, Zone-5), Mumbai and Anr. … Respondents ….. Mr. Tanmay Phadke for the Petitioner. Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondent-State. ….. CORAM: M.S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2026 P.C.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned adjudication Order, which is passed under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“MGST Act 2017”), is made without giving them an effective opportunity of hearing. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 75(4) of the MGST RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/4
15. WP 1636-2026.doc Act, 2017, which is the provision for personal hearing. 3. Smt. Jyoti Chavan, the learned Addl. G.P. appears for the Respondent-State and submits that the adjudication Order is passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that despite an opportunity, neither the tax payer nor the representative attended in the Office of Respondents to explain the transactions. It is submitted that when the reply dated 7th December 2025 was filed, the representative of the Petitioner was heard. 4. In our opinion, for want of personal hearing, the impugned adjudication Order needs to be quashed and set aside. The reply to the show cause notice dated 29th September, 2025, was submitted by the Petitioner on 7th December 2025. In the reply, it is specifically mentioned in para-11 that the Petitioner wishes to have a personal hearing in order to explain the aforesaid factual aspects in a better manner. The Adjudicating Authority was therefore requested to schedule a personal hearing in the next week. It was recorded in an email dated 17th December, 2025, whereby the Petitioner submitted soft copies of the various documents for easy reference. Again a request was made for personal hearing in order to explain the details RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/4
15. WP 1636-2026.doc submitted by the Petitioner. 5. After the reply is filed, there is nothing on record to indicate that a personal hearing was given to the Petitioner, though specifically a request was made. 6.
The impugned adjudication order records that after the reply was submitted, neither the tax payer nor its representative attended before the Office of the Respondent to explain the transactions. Further the tax payer has not submitted any contract copies related to AMC services or any contract for the supply of goods or services. 7. We do not find any mention in the impugned Order or any record to indicate that after the reply was filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was intimated the date of personal hearing. We, therefore find that the adjudicating officer has not granted a fair opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, as is the requirement of Section 75(4) of the MGST Act, 2017. The impugned Order is quashed and set aside. Hence, the following Order :- RaJesh Chittewan, PS 3/4
15. WP 1636-2026.doc : O R D E R : (i) The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudicating the show cause notice afresh in accordance with law and on its merits. (ii) The Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 19th October, 2026 at 11.00 a.m. (iii) The Petitioner shall co-operate with the Adjudicating Authority and will not ask for unnecessary adjournments. (iv) On the very same date or next, the Petitioner shall produce all the necessary documents, which are called for by the Adjudicating Authority. (vi) On the date fixed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Petitioner shall be duly heard. 8. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions. 9. The Petition stands disposed. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) RaJesh Chittewan, PS 4/4 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.10.15 15:14:10 +0530