the essay of 15 July 2026 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>JEST GST - 443</strong></font></font></font></strong></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">JULY 15, 2026</font></strong></font></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#FF6633" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong> The Unheard Order</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><u>By Vijay Kumar</u></strong></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> taxpayer landed before the Bombay High Court with a writ petition. Six copies – each running into nearly six hundred pages. Because an Assistant Commissioner decided that passing an order did not require the tedious chore of actually listening to the taxpayer. <em>(WRIT PETITION NO.11610 OF 2026) - <strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/searchcaselaw/details?id=193611&type=caselaw&keyword=null" target="_blank">2026-TIOL-820-HC-MUM-GST</a></strong></em></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the taxpayer wasn't a small trader or a confused start-up. It was <em>Standard Chartered Bank.</em> You would assume that when the assessee is a massive multinational bank, the department would at least deposit a basic modicum of respect for natural justice. But no - apparently, hearing the other side was treated like a festival -celebrated occasionally, skipped conveniently. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right at the beginning, counsel for both sides quietly agreed that the impugned order had indeed been passed without giving the petitioner a personal hearing. That moment in litigation is always amusing when everyone quietly agrees that the basic procedure was ignored, after which everyone spends a small fortune proving that the obvious was, in fact, obvious. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The petitioner's counsel submitted that on this ground alone the order stood vitiated - and rightly so. If you do not hear the taxpayer when the law says you must, the order is not merely weak; it is practically waving a banner saying,<em> <strong>"Please challenge me in High Court". </strong></em></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the first date of hearing in the High Court, the Revenue's counsel sought an adjournment to obtain instructions from the officer concerned and check whether there was any scope for hearing the petitioner and passing a fresh order. Essentially, they needed time to check whether the officer could be persuaded to obey the very statute he was hired to enforce. A thrilling development for anyone whose hobby is administrative improvisation. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then, on 01 July 2026, the Revenue's counsel, on instructions, magnanimously agreed with the petitioner's stand and submitted that the Assistant Commissioner would hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. A concession that arrived late enough to need its own apology. The law had already spoken; the department simply showed up fashionably late to agree with it. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0099ff"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Court's Order </strong></font></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Court did exactly what courts do when statutory procedure is treated like a friendly suggestion: it set aside the order and remanded the matter for a <em>de novo </em> hearing. Judicial shorthand for:<em> <strong>"Well done, everyone. Please go back and do it properly this time." </strong></em></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cleanup was tidy: </font></font></p> <div><blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- The impugned order dated 16 February 2026 was set aside. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- The proceedings were remanded for fresh hearing. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- The authority was directed to hear the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, with cooperation from the petitioner. </font></font></p></blockquote></div> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All very neat - and all entirely avoidable. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0099ff"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>But why skip the hearing? </strong></font></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the real mystery. What deep administrative wisdom led the adjudicating authority to think skipping a hearing was a masterstroke? What was the ROI here? </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Did he hope to save time? He did not save time. He manufactured a massive delay. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Did he hope to save effort? He did not save effort. He multiplied it. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Did he hope to save himself from being persuaded? That is not how law works. If your order cannot survive a simple conversation with the taxpayer, the problem isn't the conversation-the problem is your order. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What did the officer achieve by denying the hearing? </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- A fat writ paper book of about 600 pages - six copies. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Three hearings before a bench of two judges of the High Court. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- The order being set aside and remanded to him - Getting the file dropped right back onto his desk. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the ultimate form of administrative yoga: you bend over backwards, strain every muscle and still end up precisely where you started. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He could have avoided all this simply by granting a date for hearing. It is not that the order would necessarily have changed - but at least the principles of natural justice would have appeared to have been followed. Instead, he chose the more expensive route: ignore the hearing, provoke litigation, and let the High Court explain the basics. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The officer's efficiency was impressive - if the goal was to create litigation. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0099ff"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Law is Painfully Clear </strong></font></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 75(4) of the GST Act states: </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"An opportunity of hearing <strong>shall </strong> be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person." </em></font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is not a polite suggestion. This is a command. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The word<em> <strong>"shall" </strong> </em>does not mean <em>"if convenient," "if the officer is in a good mood," </em> or <em>"if the stars align and the file is not too heavy." </em> It means hearing is <strong>mandatory.</strong> </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, hearing must be granted if: </font></font></p> <div><blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- a written request is made; <strong>or </strong></font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- an adverse decision is contemplated. </font></font></p></blockquote></div> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which is to say: in the ordinary course of adjudication. If an officer is contemplating an adverse order and still thinks a hearing is optional, that is not discretion. That is misreading the law with remarkable confidence - confidence in the wrong direction. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0099ff"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Sequel Nobody Asked For </strong></font></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yet taxpayers keep approaching High Courts with the same grievance: no hearing, adverse order, and a procedural mess that could have been avoided with one short notice and one proper sitting. The facts change, the assessee changes, the officer changes - but the plot remains stubbornly identical. It is the tax administration equivalent of a sequel nobody asked for. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A personal hearing does not require the officer to change his mind. It merely requires <strong>him to hear the taxpayer before deciding. Nobody is asking for a hug, a promise, or a </strong>miracle. Just a lawful hearing. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some officers seem to behave as though a hearing weakens authority. It does not. It strengthens the order. A fair hearing gives the decision legitimacy. A skipped hearing gives the taxpayer a writ petition and the Court a headache. If the authority is worried that listening might take too long, litigation will gladly teach him the meaning of <em>"too long." </em></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0099ff"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Lesson </strong></font></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The lesson is brutally simple: </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>When the statute says ‘hear', you must hear. </strong></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not later. Not after the order. Not after the writ. Not after the remand. <strong>Before the order. </strong></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Due process is not a luxury package. It is the floor, not the ceiling. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So yes, the order was set aside. Yes, the matter was remanded. Yes, the file was huge enough to require its own luggage tag. But the real embarrassment is that the whole episode could have been avoided by doing the obvious thing at the obvious time. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A hearing would not have guaranteed success for the taxpayer. It would only have guaranteed fairness for the process - which, in law, is a rather important detail. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The department did not lose the case because it heard the taxpayer; it lost because it refused to. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A hearing is not a courtesy; it is part of the procedure, which is why skipping it never ends well. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The law did not ask the officer to agree with the taxpayer, only to hear him first.</font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="https://admin.taxindiaonline.com/UploadedFiles/Customs/CaseLaws/2026/JestGST_140726.JPG" style="height:368px; width:579px"/></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The officer saved an hour of hearing and created days of litigation. Excellent return on investment - for the lawyers. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until next week </font></font></font></p> <div align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Comments/feedback welcome at <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@tiol.in" target="_blank">vijaywrite@tiol.in </a> or 9848111243 (WhatsApp)</font></font></div> </body> </html>