Assessing Officer Violated Natural Justice by Denying Personal Hearing Under Section 75(4) CGST/BGST Act

The HC held that the assessing officer failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing after the petitioner filed a response to the show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice under section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the petition was disposed of.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the assessing officer is statutorily obligated to provide an opportunity of personal hearing after the filing of a reply to the show cause notice under section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.Whether the assessing officer can schedule a personal hearing date prior to considering the response filed by the petitioner.The scope and application of section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 regarding the conditions triggering the right to personal hearing.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The court held that under section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, "an opportunity of hearing is to be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person."The assessing officer must first apply his mind to the response submitted by the petitioner and only upon contemplating an adverse order is there a statutory obligation to provide a personal hearing; scheduling a hearing date before such consideration is contrary to the statutory scheme.Since the assessing officer did not provide any opportunity of personal hearing after the filing of the response, the impugned order was set aside.

RATIONALE:

The court applied section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which explicitly require an opportunity of hearing when either requested in writing or when an adverse decision is contemplated.The court relied on precedents from coordinate benches emphasizing the necessity of hearing only after the assessing officer contemplates an adverse order, reinforcing the procedural safeguard embedded in the statute.This interpretation ensures adherence to the principles of natural justice by mandating a personal hearing only after the officer's preliminary consideration of the petitioner's response, thereby preventing premature or arbitrary scheduling of hearings.

---