IBM India Private LimitedversusUnion of India

                                                                   41-WP-2053-2026.doc

 PURTI                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 PRASAD
 PARAB                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
PURTI PRASAD
PARAB
Date: 2026.09.03
18:32:58 +0530
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2053 OF 2026

      IBM India Private Limited                                    … Petitioner
             Versus
      The Union of India and Ors.                                  ... Respondents
                            __________________________

     Mr. Mahir Chablani a/w Mr. Prathamesh Gargate i/b Mr. Mahir Chablani
     for the Petitioner.
     Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent – State.
                           __________________________

                                         CORAM        : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                        SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                         DATED        : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

     P.C. :

     1.                Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.



     2.                The Petitioner is challenging the Adjudication Order for the

     period 1st April, 2020 to 31st March, 2021 dated 24th February, 2025 passed

     by Respondent No.3. The proceedings of audit initiated under Section 61

     of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by issuance of notice

     dated 24th August, 2023 was duly served on the Petitioner through

     Common Portal, intimating the discrepancies noticed in Returns & other

     electronic records available on Common Portal, for the aforesaid period.

     The intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section

     73(5)/74(5) read with Rule 142 in form DRC (01A) was issued by the

        Purti Parab                                                                  1/4
                                                           41-WP-2053-2026.doc

office of the Department of Goods And Services Tax vide Order dated 14 th

November, 2024. 27th December, 2024 was the date fixed for physical

hearing when the Petitioner was heard. The Petitioner filed a reply to the

Show Cause Notice dated 27th December, 2024.             A request letter for

personal hearing was made and it was requested that the personal hearing

be fixed after 7th January, 2025.        The Chartered Accountant of the

Petitioner attended the personal hearing on 13th January, 2025 and

requested for adjournment. The next date of hearing was fixed as 21 st

January, 2025.



3.             According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner no hearing

took place on 21st January, 2025 and the matter was adjourned. According

to learned Counsel for the Petitioner the officer concerned was unavailable

and it was informed that they will intimate the next date of hearing. It was

indicated that the date after 3rd February, 2025 would be given. However,

the Adjudicating Authority passed the Order dated 24 th February, 2025

without any intimation of the date.



4.             It is the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that

no opportunity of a personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. It is

contended that though a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice was

filed, the impugned order and conclusions thereon do not reflect

 Purti Parab                                                              2/4
                                                              41-WP-2053-2026.doc

consideration of any of the contentions raised in support of the

submissions of the Petitioner.



5.                We have heard learned AGP on behalf of the Respondents.

Learned AGP submitted that the Petitioner was given adequate opportunity

of hearing. He submitted that the record clearly reveals that the Petitioner

was duly heard on 27th December, 2024. It is further submitted that it is

upon considering the submissions, the impugned order was passed.


6.                We find that though learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised a

contention that the Petitioner is in SEZ and therefore the Adjudicating

Authority should have granted the benefit of exemption notification

applicable to SEZ, such contention taken in the reply to the Show Cause

Notice has not at all been adverted to by the Adjudicating Authority.        We

are of the view that the impugned order calls for interference on the

ground that the impugned order is cryptic and a non speaking order. A

detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice was filed by the Petitioner. None

of the contentions are adverted to by the Adjudicating Authority except for

observing that “the contentions are not acceptable and scope of service is

very wide and it covers the subject transactions also”. Learned Counsel for

the Petitioner relied upon the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.

Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune1 in support of his submissions.
1     2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC)

    Purti Parab                                                              3/4
                                                           41-WP-2053-2026.doc

7.             We therefore quash and set aside the impugned order. The

matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in

accordance with law. The Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating

Authority on 8th September, 2026 at 11.30 a.m. It is made clear that the

Petitioner shall not ask for any adjournment. The Adjudicating Authority

after hearing the Petitioner shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

All contentions of the parties are kept open.



8.             This shall be construed as a sufficient notice to the Petitioner

and no separate notice is required.



9.             Writ Petition is disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                                     (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Purti Parab                                                               4/4