Section 75(4) Mandate: Personal Hearing Must be Granted Before Passing Any Adverse Order, Even if Assessee Did Not Request It

ISSUE

Whether the Adjudicating Authority is required to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee under Section 75(4) before passing an adverse order, even if the assessee has not specifically requested such a hearing in writing.

FACTS

The Demand: An order was passed by the Revenue authorities under Section 73 (determination of tax not involving fraud) for the period 2022-23.
The Challenge: The assessee challenged the order, contending that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act, as no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.
Revenue’s Argument: The Revenue department argued that under the law, an opportunity of hearing is required only when the assessee makes a specific request for it. Since the assessee allegedly did not request a hearing, none was given.

HELD

Interpretation of Section 75(4): The High Court analyzed Section 75(4), which states that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted:
1. Where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable; OR
2. Where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
Mandatory Requirement: The Court held that the word “OR” makes the conditions independent. Even if the assessee does not request a hearing, the officer is statutorily bound to offer a personal hearing if they intend to pass an adverse order (i.e., confirm a demand).
Violation Established: Since an adverse decision was clearly contemplated (and passed), and no hearing was afforded, the mandatory requirement of Section 75(4) was violated.
Verdict: The impugned order was quashed and set aside. The matter is typically remanded for fresh adjudication after following due process. [In Favour of Assessee]

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The “Adverse Order” Trigger: This is a settled principle in GST jurisprudence. You do not need to beg for a hearing. If the officer plans to take even one rupee from you, they must offer you a date for a personal hearing.
Tick the Box: While the law supports you, it is always safer to explicitly tick “Yes” for Personal Hearing in your Form DRC-06 reply to avoid such litigation.
Section 75(4) is a Strong Defense: If you receive an ex-parte order where no hearing date was fixed (or the column was left blank in the notice), the order is liable to be quashed solely on this procedural ground, regardless of the merits.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Sayyad Akhtar Ali

State of Madhya Pradesh

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA and BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.

WRIT PETITION No. 46958 of2025

DECEMBER 10, 2025

Gagan Tiwari, Adv. for the Petitioner. Bhuwan Gautam, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. – The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ratlam Division, Indore under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’) for the financial year 2022-2023.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order of demand is passed in violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, as the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of personal hearing.

3. On 03.12.2025 counsel for the State was supplied copy of the judgments on which the petitioner proposes to rely. On 08.12.2025 counsel for the State was further granted time to go through the aforesaid judgments.

4. Counsel for the respondent argued that as per the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, an opportunity has to be given only when a request is made in this behalf by the assessee.

5. Per contra counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if request is not made, respondents are under obligation to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [2024] 101 GST 110/80 GSTL 4 (M.P.). In order to appreciate the aforesaid provision, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act which is reproduced as under:-

“75(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”

6. The aforesaid provision clearly mention that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Thus, it is exonerated from the aforesaid provision that when an adverse decision is contemplated, an assessee has to be given an opportunity of hearing even without any request.

7. Thus, our view is fortified by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd (supra) as it is manifest from the impugned order that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. The respondents are granted liberty to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if advised so.

8. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off.