Ignoring a Fresh Hearing Request After Additional Submissions Violates Section 75(4) and Natural Justice.

The Dispute: The “Mid-Adjudication” Silence

The Conflict: The petitioner followed the standard adjudication process, appearing for a personal hearing on July 11, 2025. However, the situation evolved:

The New Evidence: On August 14, 2025, the petitioner filed an additional reply raising entirely new grounds that were critical to the defense.
The Request: Along with this new reply, the petitioner explicitly requested a fresh personal hearing via email and written requests on July 21 and August 14.
The Breach: The Department ignored these later requests and passed the final order on August 20, 2025, relying solely on the old hearing from July 11 and ignoring the new reply altogether.

The Judicial Verdict: Mandate of Section 75(4)

The High Court ruled in favour of the Assessee, quashing the order based on the mandatory language of the law:

1. The “Adverse Decision” Trigger

The Court emphasized that under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is not a “gift” from the officer; it is a statutory right. The law says a hearing shall be granted in two independent scenarios:

1. Where a request is received in writing.
2. Where any adverse decision is contemplated.
  Since the petitioner made a fresh request after filing a new reply, the officer was legally bound to provide a new hearing date.

2. Ignoring Additional Submissions

The Court noted that by passing an order without considering the reply filed on August 14, the officer failed in their duty of “fair adjudication.” An officer must consider all material on record before signing a final order. Ignoring a subsequent reply renders the order “cryptic” and “pre-decided.”

3. Meaningful vs. Formal Hearing

The judgment clarifies that natural justice requires a meaningful and effective hearing. A hearing held before a crucial defense is even filed cannot be considered “effective” for the points raised in that defense.

Strategic Takeaways for Taxpayers in 2026

- The “Fresh Ground” Strategy: If you realize you missed a point during your first hearing, file an “Additional Submission” immediately and explicitly ask for a fresh hearing on those new points. This creates a strong “Natural Justice” shield.
- Email Evidence: Always send your hearing requests via the registered email ID and upload them as “supporting documents” on the GST portal. This prevents the Department from claiming they never received the request.
- Remand Advantage: Like this case, a successful Writ Petition usually leads to a “Remand.” This gives you a “clean slate” to argue your additional grounds before a potentially more careful officer.
- Section 75(5) Adjournments: Remember, you are legally entitled to up to three adjournments. If the Department is rushing to pass an order before the limitation period (Section 73/74) ends, they cannot use the “approaching deadline” as an excuse to skip your hearing.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

K D Engineers

Deputy/Assistant Commissioner^*

A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16344 of 2025

MARCH 12, 2026

Manya N. Anjaria for the Petitioner. Archit P. Jani for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Archit P. Jani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. Since a short issue is involved in the writ petition, the same is taken up for final hearing and is being decided by this order.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Shradha Agrawal, assisted by learned advocate Mr.Manya N. Anjaria, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, as the same has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”). Despite the request made by the petitioner to grant a personal hearing on 21.07.2025 and 14.08.2025 and an email having been sent on 21.07.2025, the respondent-authorities have passed the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 by placing reliance on the personal hearing, which had taken place on 11.07.2025. She has submitted that, in fact, after the said hearing, another reply was filed on 14.08.2025 wherein an additional ground had been taken. The same has also not been considered. Thus, it is urged that on this short ground the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

4. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Jani, while placing reliance on the affidavit-in-reply dated 10.02.2026, more particularly paragraph No. 22, has submitted that the online submission dated 14.08.2025 made by the petitioner appears to have been inadvertently overlooked, as the portal was not rechecked and the final reply dated 21.07.2025 filed by the petitioner was considered. It is submitted that the physical copy of the additional reply dated 14.08.2025 reached the adjudicating authority only on 20.08.2025 i.e. on the date when the order-in-original was issued and subsequent to its passing. It is submitted that due to these circumstances, the adjudicating authority could not consider the additional reply dated 14.08.2025. It is further submitted that since the petitioner, during the personal hearing held on 11.07.2025, did not express any intention to file further submissions and with a bona fide belief, all the submissions made on 11.07.2025 have been considered by the adjudicating authority. Thus, it is urged that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order may not be interfered with.

5. From the pleadings and the documentary evidence on record, we find that the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing only on 11.07.2025. Despite the further request made by the petitioner by email dated 21.07.2025 to grant a hearing before passing any adverse order, as also by communication dated 14.08.2025 wherein the petitioner, while filing the further reply, had also sought a personal hearing, the same has been ignored by the respondents. In fact, the reply categorically mentions that the same was not considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order-in-original dated 20.08.2025. Accordingly, the said order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in breach of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

6. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 is quashed and set aside. As a consequence, the demand notice in Form DRC-07 dated 04.09.2025 is also quashed and set aside and the matter is ordered to be remanded back to the competent authority to pass an order afresh after following the statutory provisions and granting a personal hearing to the petitioner as required under the statute. It is further clarified that the impugned order has been quashed and set aside on technical grounds alone and no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.