M/s PVR INOX LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/s INOX LEISURE LIMITED) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

📅 June 5, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Rajasthan

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice & Ashutosh Kumar, Justice

M/s PVR INOX LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/s INOX LEISURE LIMITED)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 19799/2023, With D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 19801/2023, D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 19802/2023, D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 19804/2023, D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 19814/2023 dated 19.07.2024

Law : GST

Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 / Rajasthan Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Relevant Section : Section 7, 9, 15, 50 & 73

Decision : In favour of assessee

Denial of the opportunity for a hearing – Violations principles of natural justice – Mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) – Writ Petition filed to challenge proceedings and orders passed under Sections 7, 9, 15, 50, and 73 – It was argued that orders violated principles of natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) – Specifically, after receiving SCNs, the petitioner submitted replies and requested a personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75(4). However, the petitioner claimed that the notices for personal hearings were uploaded on the Department’s portal but were not reflected on the petitioner’s GSTIN portal, resulting in a denial of the opportunity for a hearing – Held that – The court reviewed the relevant provisions of Section 75 of the RGST/CGST Acts, emphasizing the importance of granting an opportunity for a hearing when requested by a person chargeable with tax or penalty – Noted that the petitioner had indeed requested a personal hearing, and the respondents acknowledged the technical glitch that prevented the petitioner from receiving notice of the hearing – The court found that the failure to provide a personal hearing, as required by law, violated the petitioner’s rights. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the competent authority – Authority was directed to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and to complete the proceedings – Instructed petitioner not to seek any adjournments on the scheduled hearing date. The court clarified that it had not ruled on the merits of the case, allowing the petitioner to raise all available legal grounds.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Gopal Mundhra, Advocate through Video Conferencing, Daksh Pareek, Advocate

M/s PVR INOX LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/s INOX LEISURE LIMITED) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

M/s PVR INOX LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/s INOX LEISURE LIMITED) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch