Personal Hearing Is Mandatory Before Passing Adverse GST Order Even Without Taxpayer Request

By | October 2, 2026
0 Comment
Personal Hearing Is Mandatory Before Passing Adverse GST Order Even Without Taxpayer Request

Issue

Whether an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 is mandatory prior to passing an adverse adjudication order in Form GST DRC-07, even if the taxable person has not explicitly requested a hearing.

Facts

  • Background: The petitioner, a registered taxable person, challenged an adverse demand order in Form GST DRC-07 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (AVATO), Ward 61, GNCTD.
  • Denial of Opportunity: The Assessing Officer issued the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 without granting any opportunity of oral or personal hearing to the petitioner.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash and remand the DRC-07 order, asserting a complete denial of statutory personal hearing and violation of natural justice.

Decision

  • Held in favor of the assessee; matter remanded.
  • Section 75(4) creates a dual, disjunctive statutory mandate for personal hearing separated by the word ‘or’:
    1. When a specific request for a hearing is made by the taxable person, or
    2. When an adverse decision/order is contemplated against the taxable person.
  • The statutory obligation to grant a personal hearing operates mandatorily whenever an adverse order is proposed, regardless of whether a request was made by the assessee.
  • Since no personal hearing was granted prior to issuing Form GST DRC-07, the order dated 27.09.2021 was unsustainable and set aside.
  • The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after affording an effective personal hearing, keeping all merits open.

Key Takaways

  1. Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing: Section 75(4) imposes a strict statutory duty on tax officers to grant an oral hearing whenever an adverse order is contemplated, even in the absence of a request by the taxpayer.
  2. Fatal Procedural Defect: Passing an adjudication order or Form GST DRC-07 without granting a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice and invalidates the order.
  3. Automatic Remand: Adverse GST orders passed without hearing are liable to be set aside by High Courts and remanded back for fresh proceedings after compliance with statutory hearing requirements.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rohit VIJ
v.
Commissioner of GST
Bharat Parashar and Anil Kshetarpal, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 13848 of 2021†
SEPTEMBER  22, 2026
Chinmaya Seth and Ms. Palak Mathur, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ms. Urvi Mohan, Sumit Kumar, Advs. and Anuj Kumar Gupta for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ thereby setting aside impugned Order dated 27 .09.2021 [For GST DRC – 07] – Reference Number: ZA0709210215230, passed by Sh. Praveen Kumar, Sales Tax Officer Class II, AVATO, Ward No. 61, Delhi State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Trade and Taxes, VyaparBhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi -110002; and/or
(ii) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ thereby remanding the matter to the Original Authority for fresh decision to another competent officer; and/or
(iii) Grant costs to the Petition in favour of the Petitioners;”
2. The only contention advanced by learned counsel representing the Petitioner is that the Respondent failed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the Impugned Order dated 27.09.2021, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 („CGST Act’).In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the Additional Affidavit dated 18.03.2025 filed by the Respondent.
3. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was never granted an opportunity of personal hearing and states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to file its Reply to the Show Cause Notice and hence no personal hearing was required.
4. It is evident that Section 75(4) is couched in two parts. The first part provides for an opportunity of personal hearing where such opportunity is requested by the person chargeable with tax or penalty. The second part, which operates independently, provides that where the proper officer proposes to make an adverse order to such person, an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted. The two contingencies are separated by the word ‘or’.
5. Moreover, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Technosys Security System (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes  101 GST 110/80 GSTL 4 (Madhya Pradesh), has also held that sub-section (4) of Section 75 provides for an opportunity of hearing where an adverse order is passed, irrespective of whether a Reply has been filed by the taxable person.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid admitted position, the order dated 27.09.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording the Petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing.
7. The Petitioner shall appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 05.10.2026 at 12 noon. In case there is any change in the date, time or venue, the Petitioner shall be intimated at:
Mobile No.: 8851616819
Email ID: virgo.rupali@gmail.com.
8. The present Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open.