The Allahabad High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order after finding that the taxpayer was not informed about the last three dates fixed for personal hearing, holding that the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been flouted.
The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi has observed that observed that Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates that an opportunity for a personal hearing must be given if a tax defaulter requests it in writing, or if the tax officer plans to make an adverse decision against them.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Order-in-Original dated March 27, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-III, Noida under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)
The three writ petitions related respectively to the tax periods April 2019 to March 2020, April 2020 to March 2021 and April 2021 to March 2022.
The central issue before the High Court was not the merits of the tax allegations but whether the adjudication proceedings could legally culminate in an adverse order when notices concerning the final dates of personal hearing had not been uploaded on the GST Common Portal and the taxpayer consequently remained unaware of those hearings.
According to the petitioner, earlier notices issued during the adjudication proceedings had been duly uploaded on the Common Portal and replies had also been filed.
However, the situation was different with respect to the last three dates fixed for personal hearing.
The petitioner specifically contended that notices relating to the hearings scheduled for January 27, 2026, March 16, 2026 and March 25, 2026 were not uploaded on the Common Portal.
Consequently, the petitioner claimed to have had no knowledge of those proceedings. Despite the absence of the petitioner at those hearings, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the impugned order on March 27, 2026.
The taxpayer therefore argued that the adjudication order had been passed without granting an effective opportunity of personal hearing and was in violation of the statutory requirement contained in Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.
An important development before the High Court was the stand taken by the department after obtaining instructions.
The Court recorded that counsel appearing for the Revenue had earlier been granted time to obtain instructions regarding the taxpayer’s allegation.
Upon receiving instructions, the Revenue’s counsel was unable to dispute the objection that the petitioner had not been intimated about the last three dates fixed in the adjudication proceedings.
This effectively left undisputed the taxpayer’s fundamental grievance that the adjudication had proceeded without communication of the crucial hearing dates.
Taking note of the undisputed factual position, the Division Bench categorically held that the statutory requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act had not been complied with.
The Court observed: “In view of the above, we find requirement of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been flouted.”
The finding assumes significance because Section 75(4) governs the grant of an opportunity of hearing in GST proceedings. In the present case, the Court found that the taxpayer had not been informed of the final three hearing dates, even though the adjudication subsequently culminated in an adverse order.
The High Court therefore did not proceed to examine the substantive tax dispute. Once the procedural violation stood established and was effectively undisputed by the Revenue, the Court considered it unnecessary to keep the petitions pending or even call for a counter affidavit at that stage.
Consequently, the Allahabad High Court set aside the impugned order dated March 27, 2026.
Instead of terminating the underlying adjudication proceedings altogether, the Court remitted the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration.
The adjudicating authority has been directed to pass a fresh order only after granting a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The High Court also prescribed a minimum notice period to ensure that the hearing opportunity is meaningful. It directed that the taxpayer must receive at least 15 days’ advance notice before the fresh hearing.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
