TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING IN GST MATTERS
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PPORTUNITY FOR HEARING IN GST MATTERS<br>By: - DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN<br>Goods and Services Tax - GST<br>Dated:- 24-8-2026<br>Section 75 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ('Act' for short) starts with a hearing 'General provisions relating to determination of tax'. Section 75(4) provides that an opportunity of being heard shall be granted where a request is receiving in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision if contemplated against such person. Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. In this article various case laws are given which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arose under various circumstances for the benefit of the readers. Rejection of refund application In CBF Component Private Limited & Anr. Versus The Union of India & Ors. - 2026 (4) TMI 363 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, a refund application was filed by the registered person for the period from May 2023 to June 2023. Notice was issued by the Department with directions to file reply within 7 days as to the rejection of refund claim. The petitioner sought adjournment for filing reply. The Authority did not give adjournment as sought by the petitioner. It passed final order rejecting the application. The said order was also not communicated to the petitioner. The High Court observed that Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 provides for grant of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... personal hearing to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner cannot claim an adjournment as a matter of right. It is also equally true that the authority as a matter of practice and fairness, cannot decline to grant an adjournment without justifiable reason. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to decide the case after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to file the reply to the notice. The date of hearing is to be communicated at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date. Rectification of mistake In M/s. HARI OM HARDWARE AND ELECTRICAL Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2026 (8) TMI 1281 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT, the petitioner was subjected to verification of availing of input tax cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it. After issuance of the show cause notice the Authority passed an order on 13,03.2024. The petitioner alleged that without summary of the order in GST DRC - 07 and without complying with the requirement of Rule 142, the order was served on 16.04.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order. The first appellate Authority rejected the appeal. The petitioner filed a rectification application on 25.03.2025 seeking the rectification of the original order. The same was rejected without hearing. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the rejection of rectification application. The High Court, on enquiry confirmed that the Department did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing before pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the rejection order. The rejection of the rectification application is passed contrary to the clause 7 of the CBIT Notification dated 08.10.2024. The High Court set aside the impugned order. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh keeping in mind Clause 7 of the above said notification. Recovery notice In M/s. Delta Gencons India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-I (Talegaon), Pune, The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune, The Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-VI, Pune-I Commissionerate, The Union of India. - 2026 (4) TMI 1339 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the petitioner is a private company engaged in construction and logistics had registration wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h its principal place of business at Prabha devi Mumbai and additional place at Kharadi Pune and updated its email ids updated in the GST portal. The petitioner shifted the additional place to Viman Nagar, Pune. The petitioner applied for the amendment of registration certificate and the same is pending. The petitioner received an order demanding Rs.46.14 lakhs along with the recovery notice through his email id on 19.08.2025. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging the above said order. The petitioner contended that the he has not received the show cause notice at his correct email id despite he updated the latest email id on the GST portal. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was offered to him. This amounts to breach of Natural Justice and vitiated the entire adjudication and recovery proceedings. The petitioner prayed the High Court to quash the impugned orders. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Department to issue fresh show cause notice at registered address and at registered email id and to afford personal hearing. Show cause notice issued in other mode In LATHEESH VALANGI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ARREAR RECOVERY) ERNAKULAM, STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, UNION OF INDIA AND CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2026 (8) TMI 1364 - KERALA HIGH COURT, the petitioner, in the present writ petition filed before the High Court, challe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and section 16(4) of the Act. The petitioner also raised a specific allegation the show cause notice was not issued to him prior to the passing of the assessment order. The show cause notice was also not served on the portal in accordance with the provisions of Section 169 of the Act. The said notices were served only in the 'Additional Notices Window' of the portal because of which he could not access the show cause notice and file a reply to the show cause notice. The High Court observed that the notces were uploaded on 'Additional Notices' window of the portal. The High Court held that there is a violation of the principles of Natural Justice. The High Court allowed the review petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner and set aside the impugned order. Adverse decision In Rajnish Kumar Son of Shri Sanjay Kumar, a Proprietor of M/s Raj Communication Versus Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, Kankarbagh Range and Superintendent, Group-05, Central Tax, Audit Circle, Patna - 2026 (6) TMI 1347 - PATNA HIGH COURT, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.06.2025 for the tax period from 2018 - 19 to 2022 - 23 under Section 74 of the Act. The order was passed on 07.10.2025. Against this the petitioner approached the High Court. The petitioner contended that a personal hearing is required to be given when the Assessing Officer decided to pass an adverse order. The High Court observed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Assessing Officer ganted three opportunities of personal hearing to the taxpayer. The authorised representative of the petitioner appeared the personal hearing and made a submission that the defence reply in written statement is the final submission in this case and nothing more is to be said in addition to the reply. Therefore, the High Court observed that the mandate of Section 75(4) has been fully complied with. The High Court observed that giving another opportunity of hearing would amount to add something to the statue which are not there. Absence of hearing date in show cause notice In Parv Alloys & Metals Versus Union of India and others - 2026 (5) TMI 249 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, the petitioner was issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with a show cause notice by the Department. The Show cause notice recorded 'NA' against date, time and venue for personal hearing. The petitioner did not file reply to the show cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order demanding tax without giving him a personal hearing. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court citing breach of mandatory hearing and naturel justice. The High Court held that the statutory scheme obligated the revenue to provide opportunity of hearing before contemplating any adverse decision, which was not in this case. The Revenue contended that hearing was unnecessary since no written reply was filed. The High Court rejected the advancements made by the Revenue. The High Court set aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the adjudication order with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law after granting personal hearing to the petitioner. Short time given for production of documents In AVIK TELEVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus OFFICE OF THE GST OFFICER, WARD - 71 - 2026 (8) TMI 1294 - SC Order, the assessee was engaged in trading and export of branded mobile phones. The assessee was subjected to special audit resulting in the issue of show cause notice and passing of order. The Special auditor was appointed for this purpose. The audit observations were issued to the Department. The Department issued audit paras to the assessee to give replies to the paras. The assessee filed replies along with the documents. On 27.12.2025 @ 05.20 pm, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was reminded to submit the documents by 29.12.2025. The assessee sought one week time for submission of required documents. On 31.12.2025 the Department issued order confirming the demand. The assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court observed that less than one effective working day is given to furnish certified bank statement and voluminous records. The adjournment sought by the assessee was not considered. The High Court held that mere participating in the hearing did not satisfy the mandate of reasonable and effective hearing. The timeline given to the assessee is illusory. The order was passed on the same day of hearing which showed undue haste and raise apprehension of non-consideration. The High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quashed the order-in-original. Against this order, the Department filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special leave petition, since the Supreme Court did not find any ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. =============<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....