Natural justice in GST adjudication requires consideration of the taxpayer's reply and a speaking order after fair hearing.

A GST demand order could not stand because the authority failed to consider the taxpayer's reply filed on the portal and proceeded as if no response had been submitted. The order was treated as non-speaking and passed without application of mind, with no proper consideration of the objections raised. The absence of a meaningful personal hearing was also held to breach the procedural safeguard under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Madras HC set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authority to examine the reply and pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the GST demand order was liable to be set aside for failure to consider the petitioner's reply and for breach of natural justice, and whether the matter required reconsideration.

Analysis: The reply uploaded in the portal before the impugned order was not considered, while the order proceeded on the premise that no reply had been filed. The order did not reflect consideration of the petitioner's objections and was found to be a non-speaking order passed without application of mind. The absence of a proper opportunity of personal hearing was also treated as a violation of the procedural safeguard under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondent to consider the reply and pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining interference with the assessment order, but the dispute was sent back for fresh decision by the authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand order under GST cannot be sustained when it is passed without considering the taxpayer's reply and without adherence to natural justice, including the requirement of a fair hearing where applicable.

---