Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Procedural Fairness Prevails: Tax Hearing Violation Nullifies Order, Mandates Fresh Proceedings Under Section 75(4) HC found a procedural violation in tax proceedings where the petitioner was denied a mandatory personal hearing under section 75(4) of U.P. G.S.T. Act, ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
HC found a procedural violation in tax proceedings where the petitioner was denied a mandatory personal hearing under section 75(4) of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. Despite non-submission of written reply, the court emphasized natural justice principles require oral hearing opportunities. The impugned order was set aside, matter remitted for fresh proceedings with directive to provide personal hearing and allow petitioner to file final reply within two weeks.
Issues involved: The primary issue in this case is the failure to grant the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017.
Summary of Judgment:
1. The court noted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing as required by law, despite receiving notices that did not propose to grant personal hearing.
2. It was emphasized that even if the petitioner failed to submit a written reply to a show cause notice, they should still have the right to participate in an oral hearing to contest adverse conclusions.
3. The court highlighted that the rules of natural justice embedded in the statute necessitate both written and oral opportunities for hearing, which must be satisfied independently.
4. On the merits of the case, the petitioner's counsel argued that a detailed reply was not necessary, and any discrepancies could have been clarified during a personal hearing.
5. The petitioner's failure to respond to the notice in a timely manner was attributed to the closure of their business operations since 2020.
6. The court found that the impugned order was passed contrary to the mandatory procedure, and the deficiency in the procedure was critical to the outcome of the proceedings.
7. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order, directing the petitioner to file a final reply within two weeks and appear before the assessing authority on a specified date for further proceedings.
8. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
