Procedural fairness in GST adjudication requires clear hearing notice and real opportunity to respond before an adverse demand order.

An adjudication order under GST was set aside where the record did not show clear and consistent service of a hearing notice before the adverse determination. Although earlier participation and a notice under section 73(1) were noted, the absence of a communicated hearing date and any meaningful to answer the proposed demand rendered the process contrary to the statutory scheme of fair adjudication. The matter was remitted for a fresh reply and de novo hearing, after which a reasoned order is to be passed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order passed under the GST law was liable to be set aside for want of proper notice and hearing, resulting in an ex parte and procedurally unfair determination.

Analysis: The proceedings reflected serious irregularities in the conduct of adjudication. The record showed participation by the petitioner at earlier stages, issuance of notice under section 73(1), and intermittent entries on the order sheet, but no clear and consistent notice of hearing was shown to have been served before the impugned order. The absence of a communicated hearing date, coupled with the passing of the order without meaningful opportunity to answer the proposed demand, rendered the process contrary to the statutory scheme and the requirements of fair adjudication. In matters leading to tax demand and penalty, the noticee must be afforded a real opportunity to reply and be heard before an adverse order is made.

Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was set aside for breach of procedural fairness and want of proper opportunity of hearing, and the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh reply and participate in a de novo hearing before a reasoned order is passed.

---