2026 (3) TMI 830 - HC - GST

Opportunity of hearing requires fresh adjudication when post hearing submissions and hearing requests were not considered, resulting in quashing.

Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act requires an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order; the authority failed to ... Validity of impugned order passed by failing to consider the petitioner's additional reply and requests for a personal hearing - Failure to comply with Section 75(4) of the CGST Act - breach of principles of natural justice for non-consideration of additional submissions - remand for fresh adjudication after granting personal hearing. Failure to comply with Section 75(4) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The Court found that after a personal hearing on 11.07.2025 the petitioner submitted further communications including an online reply dated 14.08.2025 and an email dated 21.07.2025 requesting a personal hearing, which were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The authority considered the final reply dated 21.07.2025 filed earlier but inadvertently overlooked the online submission of 14.08.2025 and the request for hearing; the physical copy reached the authority only on the date the order was passed. The failure to consider the additional reply and to grant the requested personal hearing amounted to non-compliance with the statutory mandate of Section 75(4) and a breach of natural justice, warranting interference. The Court emphasised that the defect was procedural/technical and did not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying disputes. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6] Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with Section 75(4) by granting a personal hearing and considering the petitioner's additional submissions; quash on procedural grounds without expression on merits. Final Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed: the impugned order and the consequential demand notice in Form DRC-07 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after granting the petitioner a personal hearing and considering the additional submissions; no view expressed on merits. Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's additional reply and requests for a personal hearing.Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires that the adjudicating authority afford opportunity of hearing before passing an order that may be adverse to the taxpayer; this statutory entitlement engages the principles of natural justice. The record shows that a personal hearing was held on 11.07.2025, subsequent online submissions and an email dated 21.07.2025 and an additional reply dated 14.08.2025 were submitted and a request for personal hearing was reiterated, but those submissions were not considered by the authority when passing the impugned order dated 20.08.2025. The court examined the sequence of filings and communications and found that the additional material was not taken into account prior to the order; consequently the statutory requirement and the petitioner's opportunity to be heard were not complied with.Conclusion: The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 is quashed and set aside for breach of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice. The demand notice in Form DRC-07 dated 04.09.2025 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after following the statutory provisions and granting a personal hearing. The quashing is on technical/procedural grounds and no expression is made on the merits of the case.