IBM India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

                                  Ibm India Private Limited vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2026







Ibm India Private Limited vs Union Of India on 1 September,



2026







Author: M. S. Karnik







Bench: M. S. Karnik







                                                                                                                          CNR



















                                                                                                                           41







                                     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                                                     ..



                                                    Versus



                                             The Union of India and Ors.                                                   ..



                                                                   __________________________







                                            Mr. Mahir Chablani a/w Mr. Prathamesh Gargate i/b Mr. Mahir Chabl



                                            for the Petitioner.



                                            Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent - State.



                                                                  __________________________







                                                                                                     CORAM   : M. S. KARNIK A



                                                                                                               SANDESH D. PAT











                                                                                                     DATED   : 1st SEPTEMBER,







                                            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







Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/53615649/                                                                1



                                  Ibm India Private Limited vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2026







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 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 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)



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.















Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/53615649/                                                 2



                                  Ibm India Private Limited vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2026







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.)



















         Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



















Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/53615649/                                                             3