SECTION 75(4): THE FORGOTTEN MANDATE OF HEARING UNDER GST By G. Jayaprakash, Advocate (Former Central Excise Officer)

1. Legislative context

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 reads:

“An opportunity of hearing shall 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.”

The disjunctive “or” makes the grant of a personal hearing mandatory in two situations: (a) when the taxpayer requests it in writing, and (b) whenever an adverse decision is contemplated, even without such request.  It is therefore not a procedural nicety but a statutory command echoing the audi alteram partem rule.

2. Judicial reinforcement by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has consistently treated Section 75(4) as mandatory and self-executing.

• M/s Vaduvambikai Enterprises v. State Tax Officer – the Court held that whenever an adverse decision is in contemplation, the authority must afford a personal hearing; failure vitiates the order.
• Periyadurai Sadayappan v. ITO (ST) – confirmation of demand without hearing violates both Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice; matter remanded.
• Tvl. Fulcrum International Pvt. Ltd. v. AC (ST) – detailed written reply does not dispense with oral hearing; order quashed.
• Gillette India Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (ST) – reiterated that hearing is obligatory whenever an adverse view is proposed.
• Roop Rajat Exports v. STO (Madras HC, 2025) – admitted absence of hearing; entire order set aside.
• Madurai Bench (ITC dispute, 2025) – adjournment request ignored; Court treated it as denial of opportunity under Section 75(4).
• Registration-cancellation cases – even in cancellation proceedings, hearing is essential; portal uploads are no substitute.

3. What the Court expects from adjudicating authorities

1. Offer hearing suo motu when adverse order is contemplated—do not wait for a request.
2. Record the date and mode (physical or VC) in the file.
3. Reasonable adjournments must be considered; abrupt confirmation is frowned upon.
4. Orders must be “speaking”—they should note that hearing was granted and address submissions.
5. Portal communication ? personal hearing.

4. Consequences of breach

Orders passed in violation of Section 75(4) are treated as void for want of natural justice and are routinely quashed and remanded.  The Court often fixes timelines for fresh adjudication after hearing, reminding officers that compliance with Section 75(4) is not a ritual but a jurisdictional prerequisite.

5. Defensive practice for assessees

• Insert a standard paragraph in replies: “Without prejudice, we request personal hearing under Section 75(4).”
• If hearing is not scheduled, send a written reminder before the order.
• Document attendance, adjournment requests and written notes at hearing.
• In writs, annex proof of request and omission to demonstrate violation.

6. The larger message

Section 75(4) embodies institutional fairness—a bulwark against faceless, mechanical adjudication.  The Madras High Court’s steady insistence on compliance restores balance between revenue interest and taxpayer rights.  The GST administration would do well to internalise this discipline; an opportunity of hearing is not a concession but the very condition of lawful authority.

Conclusion: The Ease of Being Heard

Section 75(4) is not merely a statutory clause; it is the conscience of GST. It ensures that administrative authority carries the weight of fairness, that enforcement travels with empathy, and that the taxpayer’s right to be heard is treated as the foundation of compliance, not an obstacle to it.

In the end, ease of doing business truly begins with ease of being heard.