https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789786 Under the CGST Act, a personal hearing under Section 75(4) was not treated as mandatory where the assessee had expressly indicated in the GST DRC-06 forms and objections that no hearing was required. The alleged breach of natural justice therefore failed, because the absence of a hearing resulted from the assessee's own conscious election rather than from any denial by the department. The existence of an effective statutory appellate remedy also remained intact, so the assessment order was not regarded as void and did not justify direct invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The challenge on denial of hearing was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue the remedy available in law. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789786 Under the CGST Act, a personal hearing under Section 75(4) was not treated as mandatory where the assessee had expressly indicated in the GST DRC-06 forms and objections that no hearing was required. The alleged breach of natural justice therefore failed, because the absence of a hearing resulted from the assessee's own conscious election rather than from any denial by the department. The existence of an effective statutory appellate remedy also remained intact, so the assessment order was not regarded as void and did not justify direct invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The challenge on denial of hearing was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue the remedy available in law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789786