Failure to File Written Reply Cannot Extinguish Mandatory Right to Personal Hearing Under GST Section 75(4)

By | August 5, 2026
0 Comment

Failure to File Written Reply Cannot Extinguish Mandatory Right to Personal Hearing Under GST Section 75(4)

Failure to File Written Reply Cannot Extinguish Mandatory Right to Personal Hearing Under GST Section 75(4)

Issue

Whether an adverse adjudication order passed under Section 74 without granting a personal hearing—and by marking “NA” under the hearing details column in notices—is legally sustainable when the assessee fails to submit a written reply.

Facts

  • The petitioner, a registered person under the U.P. GST Act, was issued a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 proposing an adverse demand.

  • The reminder notice issued subsequently recorded “NA” against the date, time, and venue columns prescribed for a personal hearing.

  • No personal hearing was offered or conducted by the adjudicating authority prior to passing the final order.

  • An adverse order dated April 24, 2024, was passed under Section 74 on account of non-submission of a written reply.

  • The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the adjudication order for breach of mandatory statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.

Decision

  • The High Court held that Section 75(4) mandates granting an opportunity of personal hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated against a taxable person, irrespective of whether a written request was made.

  • The High Court held that marking “NA” in the hearing columns of SCNs and reminder notices establishes a pre-emptive and arbitrary denial of the statutory right to an oral hearing.

  • The High Court clarified that the GST statute embeds dual, distinct procedural rights: (i) the right to file a written response, and (ii) the right to an oral personal hearing.

  • The failure to submit a written reply merely closes the written opportunity; it does not extinguish the independent statutory right to a personal hearing, where the assessee can still raise pure legal or jurisdictional contentions.

  • The High Court quashed the impugned order dated April 24, 2024, allowed the writ petition, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing.

Key Takeaways

  • Mandatory Personal Hearing under Section 75(4): An oral hearing is a mandatory statutory precondition whenever the Revenue contemplates passing an adverse order—it cannot be bypassed administratively.

  • Independence of Oral and Written Rights: Written submissions and oral personal hearings are non-substitutable, independent safeguards. Non-filing of a written reply does not forfeit the right to a personal hearing.

  • Illegality of “NA” Placeholders: Populating “NA” or leaving blank spaces in the hearing columns of SCNs and reminders constitutes a mechanical pre-determination that vitiates the entire adjudication process.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ved Enterprises
v.
State of U.P.
Shekhar B. Saraf and ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, JJ.
WRIT TAX No. 1003 of 2026
JULY  23, 2026
Mukesh Kumar Tewari, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Sanjai Sarin, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Having heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai Sarin, learned Counsel for the State-respondents/ revenue, we find that as per Section 75 (4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted before any adverse decision is taken against any person, here a registered person/petitioner.
2. Undeniably, the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 74 of the Act, which did intend to call for a reply from the petitioner but the reminder notice did not propose to grant personal hearing as the abbreviation “NA” was specified against the column “date of personal hearing”. In that against the columns meant to specify the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue for personal hearing, the abbreviation “NA” i.e. ‘Not Applicable’ was recorded.
3. In view of the above position admitted on the record, the only conclusion possible to be drawn is that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing.
4. Thus, upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However, by virtue of the express provision of Section 75 of the Act, even in that situation the petitioner did not lose its right to participate at oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against the petitioner, may be dropped.
5. In other words, the rules of natural justice as are ingrained in the statute prescribe dual requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.
6. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that detailed reply was not required. The discrepancies in the returns as noticed by the adjudicating authority would have been clarified if opportunity of personal hearing had been granted.
7. In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure. The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out-come of the proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order. In that regard the petitioner may file its final reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from date. Thereafter, the petitioner may appear before the assessing authority on the date fixed by the assessing authority, whereafter the assessing authority may pass appropriate reasoned order.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.