https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783903 The dominant issues were whether the adjudication exceeded statutory jurisdiction under s.75(7) of the WBGST Act, 2017 and whether denial of a requested personal hearing violated s.75(4) and natural justice. The HC held that an adjudicating authority is bound by the ceiling in the show cause notice, and any final demand exceeding the proposed tax is ultra vires, vitiating the order in toto; consequently, the demand was quashed. It further held that s.75(4) uses mandatory language, making personal hearing a statutory duty once requested, and denial in s.74 proceedings is a fatal infirmity incapable of curative post facto consideration; consequently, the ex parte order was set aside. The adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded; appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783903 The dominant issues were whether the adjudication exceeded statutory jurisdiction under s.75(7) of the WBGST Act, 2017 and whether denial of a requested personal hearing violated s.75(4) and natural justice. The HC held that an adjudicating authority is bound by the ceiling in the show cause notice, and any final demand exceeding the proposed tax is ultra vires, vitiating the order in toto; consequently, the demand was quashed. It further held that s.75(4) uses mandatory language, making personal hearing a statutory duty once requested, and denial in s.74 proceedings is a fatal infirmity incapable of curative post facto consideration; consequently, the ex parte order was set aside. The adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded; appeal allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783903