Just a moment...
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. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an assessment order passed under the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 could survive when no personal hearing was afforded before taking an adverse decision.
Analysis: Section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of personal hearing before any adverse order is passed against a registered person. The notice under Section 74 of the Act required a written reply, but the reminder notice recorded "NA" against the column for personal hearing, showing that no hearing was proposed or fixed. On the admitted record, the petitioner was therefore denied the statutory oral hearing. The statutory scheme treats the opportunity to file a written reply and the opportunity of oral hearing as distinct safeguards, and failure to avail or grant one does not extinguish the other.
Conclusion: The impugned order was contrary to the mandatory procedure and could not stand. It was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a final reply and appear for hearing.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded on the ground of breach of mandatory pre-decisional hearing, and the assessment was restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly requires a personal hearing before an adverse decision, denial of that hearing vitiates the order notwithstanding any opportunity to submit a written reply.