The Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of parallel GST proceedings initiated by both Central and State authorities against M/s Hotel Vishesh Resort. The resort, owned by Sandeep Jaiswal, challenged orders dated 30.03.2026 from both authorities and a rectification order dated 31.08.2026. The Court found that the Central CGST authority had initiated proceedings first, making the subsequent State GST order invalid. Consequently, the State GST rectification order was also quashed as it stemmed from the flawed State proceedings.
Read more: Delhi High Court - Issue of fake ITC - Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the GST demand, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy [Order attached]
The Court further noted that the Central CGST authority had issued an ex-parte order without granting the petitioner an effective opportunity for a personal hearing. Although the petitioner had filed a reply, hearings scheduled for 2025 were not followed by a fresh hearing opportunity before the order was passed in 2026. Citing M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P., the Court emphasized that authorities must either decide on the scheduled hearing date or set a new date for a hearing. As a result, the Central CGST order was also quashed, with instructions to provide the petitioner a fair hearing and issue a reasoned order thereafter. The petitioner was advised not to request adjournments on the rescheduled hearing date.
Order Date - 05 October 2026
Parties: M/s Hotel Vishesh Resort Vs Union of India and 6 Others
Facts -
- M/s Hotel Vishesh Resort, through its proprietor Sandeep Jaiswal, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging GST orders passed by the Central and State GST authorities.
- The petitioner challenged two orders dated 30.03.2026, one passed by the Central CGST authority and another by the State GST authority, along with a rectification order dated 31.08.2026.
- The Court observed that proceedings for the same period had been initiated by both Central CGST and State CGST authorities. It was admitted that the Central CGST authority had initiated proceedings first.
- Further, although the petitioner had filed a reply, the Central CGST authority passed an ex-parte order without granting an effective opportunity of personal hearing.
Issue -
- Whether parallel GST proceedings by Central and State authorities for the same period and passing an ex-parte assessment order without granting an effective hearing were legally sustainable.
Order -
- Thee High Court observed that both Central CGST and State CGST authorities had initiated proceedings for the same period. Since the Central CGST authority had initiated proceedings first, the subsequent State GST order dated 30.03.2026 was liable to be quashed.
- Consequently, the Court quashed the State GST rectification order dated 31.08.2026 as well, since it arose from the impugned State GST proceedings.
- Regarding the Central CGST proceedings, the Court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply but was not granted a personal hearing. Although hearing dates were fixed for 26.08.2025, 03.09.2025 and 16.10.2025, the authority passed the order on 30.03.2026 without providing a fresh hearing opportunity.
- Relying on the decision in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P., the Court held that authorities must either pass an order on the scheduled hearing date or communicate a fresh hearing date. The Central CGST order was therefore quashed, with directions to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed not to seek any adjournment on the hearing date.
