The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an adjudication order on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted before passing the order and the omission to mention  to specify any date, time, or venue for personal hearing is in clear violation of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rohit Kapoor has observed that the department is under a statutory obligation to grant a personal hearing before passing any adverse order under the GST regime. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the adjudication legally unsustainable.

The case arose from a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated May 19, 2023, which was passed pursuant to a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2017–18. The petitioner contended that although the notice required a written reply, it failed to specify any date, time, or venue for personal hearing, thereby depriving the petitioner of a statutory right to be heard.

Upon examining the show cause notice, the Court noted that the columns for date, time, and venue of personal hearing were marked as “NA” (not applicable), effectively denying the petitioner an opportunity to present its case orally. The Court emphasized that such omission cannot be treated as a mere procedural lapse but strikes at the root of fair adjudication.

Referring to Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, the Bench clarified that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory whenever an adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. The statutory provision does not make the grant of personal hearing conditional upon filing of a written reply. Even in the absence of a written response, the assessee retains the right to be heard before any adverse order is passed.

Rejecting the State’s argument that no hearing was required due to non-submission of a reply, the Court observed that a personal hearing could have enabled the petitioner to produce relevant documents such as account books, ledgers, or even submit written arguments at that stage to defend its case. Denial of such an opportunity, therefore, amounts to a violation of both statutory mandate and principles of natural justice.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned adjudication order. However, it granted liberty to the tax authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, provided that due compliance with Section 75(4) and other procedural safeguards is ensured.

Case Details

Case Title: Parv Alloys & Metals Versus UOI

Citation: JURISHOUR-1058-HC-2026(P&H) 

Case No.: CWP-13039-2026

Date: 29.04.2026

Counsel For  Appellant: Mukul Singla, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G.

Read More: ITAT Remands Taxability Issue of Fees Regulating Authority; Keeps S. 10(46) Exemption Question Open Pending CBDT Notification