Petitioner denied mandatory hearings under CGST Act; appeal filing extended with pre-deposit till August 31, 2025

The HC found that the petitioner was denied the mandatory three personal hearings under the CGST Act and was unaware of the Show Cause Notice and impugned order. A demand of Rs. 88,474/- was raised without affording the petitioner an opportunity to reply or be heard. Exercising writ jurisdiction, the HC extended the time for filing the appeal until 31 August 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit. If filed within this period, the appeal will not be dismissed as time-barred and will be decided on merits. The petitioner may present its case before the Appellate Authority, which must consider it on its own merits. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the petitioner was entitled to personal hearings before passing the assessment order under Section 73 of the CGST Act.Whether the failure to grant personal hearings violates principles of natural justice and warrants setting aside the impugned order.Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment order can be extended due to lack of knowledge of the order.Whether the appellate authority is obliged to consider the appeal on merits if filed within the extended limitation period.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the petitioner was not granted the opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by the CGST Act, which is a violation of the procedural requirements.The impugned order passed without granting personal hearings is subject to challenge, and the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to present its case.The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to extend the limitation period for filing the appeal till 31st August, 2025, acknowledging that the petitioner was unaware of the order and thus the limitation period had expired.The appeal filed within the extended period "shall not be dismissed being barred by limitation" and must be adjudicated on merits, allowing the petitioner to place its stand before the Appellate Authority.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the procedural safeguards under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which require issuance of a Show Cause Notice and grant of personal hearings before passing an assessment order.The principle of natural justice mandates that a party must be given an opportunity to be heard before adverse orders are passed against it.The Court recognized the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the impugned order due to reliance on a GST consultant and the absence of personal hearings, justifying extension of limitation under writ jurisdiction.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the decision follows established principles regarding procedural fairness and limitation extensions in tax proceedings.

---