Personal hearing under GST is mandatory; absence of hearing vitiates the order, and delay did not bar relief.

An adjudicatory order under the GST law cannot be sustained where no date of personal hearing was fixed in the show-cause notice and no hearing was otherwise afforded before the final order, because this breaches the mandatory safeguard in section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice; the order was therefore liable to be quashed. A delay objection in filing the writ petition did not defeat relief because the impugned order suffered from clear procedural illegality, so the Court overruled that objection and left the matter open for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order passed under section 73 could be sustained when no date of personal hearing was fixed in the show-cause notice or otherwise afforded before the final order. (ii) Whether the objection as to delay in filing the writ petition could defeat relief despite the alleged breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order passed under section 73 could be sustained when no date of personal hearing was fixed in the show-cause notice or otherwise afforded before the final order.

Analysis: The absence of any fixed date of personal hearing, either in the show-cause notice or at any later stage before passing the order, constituted a clear breach of the mandatory requirement of section 75(4). Such non-compliance vitiated the adjudication, as the assessee was denied the procedural safeguard of hearing before adverse determination.

Conclusion: The order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed for violation of section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection as to delay in filing the writ petition could defeat relief despite the alleged breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Since the impugned order suffered from a clear procedural illegality and violation of natural justice, the Court declined to treat the delay objection as decisive against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The delay objection was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was set aside, and the matter was left open for fresh decision after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order under the GST law cannot be sustained where the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing under section 75(4) is denied, and such breach justifies quashing of the order notwithstanding a minor delay in approaching the Court.

---