Personal hearing under GST cannot be denied on a hyper-technical view when a written request is made with the reply.

A written request for personal hearing made in a belated reply could not be ignored merely because the reply was time-barred. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires consideration of such a request, and treating it as rejected on a hyper-technical basis was held to defeat the statutory safeguard and violate natural justice. The assessment order was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after granting a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside for failure to afford the petitioner a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The reply filed by the petitioner was rejected as belated, but the reply itself contained a written request for personal hearing. Section 75(4) requires that when a written request for personal hearing is made by the person chargeable with tax or penalty, the request must be considered. Treating the request as rejected merely because the reply was time-barred was held to be a hyper-technical approach that defeated the statutory safeguard. The denial of hearing amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement and caused violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

---