Opportunity of hearing must be demonstrably afforded; absence of proof of online notice vitiates the adjudication and requires fresh adjudication.

Failure to demonstrate service of a hearing notice via the withdrawn online portal rendered the adjudication infirm for non compliance with the statutory requirement to grant an opportunity of hearing and the audi alteram partem principle; consequently the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with liberty to file replies and a mandatory personal hearing before any adverse order is passed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order dated 14.12.2023, passed under the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The impugned order was alleged to have been passed without affording the petitioners any personal hearing. The material before the Court shows no physical notice was served and the only asserted mode of notice was an online ACES-GST application which has been withdrawn since June 2025, leaving no record, screenshot, or proof of service. Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017 mandates grant of opportunity of hearing before adverse orders are passed; this statutory requirement gives effect to the audi alteram partem principle. In the absence of satisfactory proof that the petitioners were afforded such an opportunity, the adjudication cannot be sustained on grounds of compliance with Section 75(4) or the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication order dated 14.12.2023 is set aside for failure to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice; the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication with liberty to the petitioners to file replies within two weeks and with a mandatory opportunity of hearing if any adverse order is contemplated.

---