S. 75(4) Of CGST Act Mandates 3 Opportunities Of Personal Hearing — A Statutory Obligation, Not Procedural Choice: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has held that Section 75(4) Of CGST Act mandates 3 opportunities of personal hearing — a statutory obligation, not procedural choice. The bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has observed that adjudication proceedings affecting civil consequences must comply with the doctrine of audi alteram partem—the fundamental principle that no person should be condemned unheard. The proper notice and meaningful opportunity of hearing constitute essential components of a fair adjudicatory process. The petitioner, Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat, is a registered taxpayer under the GST regime. The dispute arose after tax authorities conducted a search at the petitioner’s premises and seized books of accounts. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued in Form GST DRC-01 alleging tax irregularities. The petitioner subsequently filed a detailed reply to the notice in Form DRC-06. Despite the reply being filed, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an order under Section 74 of the GST Act on December 30, 2023, without granting a personal hearing. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the taxpayer approached the Gujarat High Court challenging the proceedings on the ground of violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and principles of natural justice. The principal question before the Court was whether GST authorities could pass an adverse adjudication order without granting a personal hearing merely because the taxpayer had selected “No” in the personal hearing option while filing the reply to the show cause notice. The State argued that since the petitioner had expressly chosen not to seek a personal hearing in Form DRC-06, the adjudicating authority was justified in proceeding with the matter on the basis of written submissions alone. The High Court rejected the State's argument and held that the statutory mandate contained in Section 75(4) of the GST Act cannot be overridden by an option selected by a taxpayer in a prescribed form. The Bench observed that the obligation to provide hearing is imposed upon the adjudicating authority by statute and cannot be dispensed with merely because a taxpayer indicates otherwise. During the hearing, the State itself acknowledged that the statutory framework envisages multiple opportunities of hearing before an adverse order is passed. The Court observed that once the legislature has prescribed procedural safeguards, authorities are duty-bound to follow them. The Bench relied upon its earlier ruling in M/s. Yadav Trailor Transport Co. v. Union of India and also referred to the decision in Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd., where the Court had underscored the importance of adequate hearing opportunities and strict adherence to principles of natural justice. According to the Bench, the failure to grant the mandated opportunities of personal hearing amounted to a clear breach of natural justice. The Court noted that before passing an order creating tax liability and other adverse consequences, authorities must ensure strict procedural compliance. Any deviation from these safeguards renders the proceedings vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. The judgment reinforces the growing body of GST jurisprudence where High Courts across the country have repeatedly intervened against ex parte orders and assessments passed without adequate hearing opportunities. Allowing the writ petition, the Gujarat High Court quashed the impugned order dated December 30, 2023, and remanded the matter back to the tax authorities for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the authorities to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with the requisite opportunities of hearing and to complete the exercise within twelve weeks. Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the tax dispute and that all issues remain open before the adjudicating authority. Case Details Case Title: Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat Versus State Tax Officer (4) & Anr Citation: JURISHOUR-1559-HC-2026(GUJ) Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 6209 Of 2024 Date: 02/04/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Punit B Juneja Counsel For Respondent: Hetvi H Sancheti Click Here To Read Order Read More: No Evidence of Customs Broker’s Knowledge of Misdeclared Sugar Export: CESTAT Quashes Penalty Under CBLR

S. 75(4) Of CGST Act Mandates 3 Opportunities Of Personal Hearing — A Statutory Obligation, Not Procedural Choice: Gujarat HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 03 July, 2026

Revenue Neutrality Negates Intent to Evade Tax, CESTAT Quashes Reverse Charge Service Tax Demand

Taxpayer Can’t Be Left Remediless Over Limitation: Rajasthan HC Allows Time-Barred GST Appeal

FEMA-DGFT Merchant Trade Regulations Require Banks to Conduct Enhanced Due Diligence Before Forex Remittances: Gauhati High Court Upholds ICICI Bank Action

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 03 July, 2026

Revenue Neutrality Negates Intent to Evade Tax, CESTAT Quashes Reverse Charge Service Tax Demand

Taxpayer Can’t Be Left Remediless Over Limitation: Rajasthan HC Allows Time-Barred GST Appeal

About us

Company

Categories