Natural justice in GST adjudication: ex parte order without mandated hearing was unsustainable despite appellate remedy.

Under the U.P. GST Act, an adjudication order passed under Section 74 without a separate opportunity of personal hearing was contrary to Section 75(4) and the requirements of natural justice, so it could not be sustained. The court also noted that the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 did not bar writ interference where the order was ex parte and the statutory hearing requirement had not been complied with. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after giving due hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 without affording a separate opportunity of personal hearing could be sustained. (ii) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 barred interference in writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether an adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 without affording a separate opportunity of personal hearing could be sustained.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed after notice for reply was issued, but no separate date for hearing was fixed and no further notice for hearing was given before the order was made. In such adjudication proceedings, Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where adverse decision is contemplated, and denial of that opportunity renders the process contrary to the requirements of fairness and natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable as it was passed in violation of the mandatory requirement of hearing and the principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 barred interference in writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Since the impugned adjudication order was ex parte and passed without affording the hearing mandated by law, the alternative remedy could not operate as an effective bar to writ relief in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order passed under the GST regime without the hearing required by the statute and natural justice is liable to be set aside, and the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ interference where the defect goes to the fairness of the proceeding.

---