GST Adjudication Passed Without Granting Mandatory Personal Hearing Under Section 75(4) Is Legally Unsustainable
Issue
Whether an adjudication order under Section 75 of the GST Act involving an adverse tax determination can be sustained when the Revenue fails to provide a mandatory personal hearing to the assessee under Section 75(4).
Facts
-
Nature of Petition: The petitioner-assessee filed a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
-
Adverse Determination: The impugned order entailed an adverse tax determination against the assessee.
-
Denial of Opportunity: The Revenue failed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee prior to passing the adjudication order.
-
Revenue’s Admission: During proceedings, the Revenue counsel admitted that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed.
-
Statutory Invocation: The petitioner invoked Section 75(4) of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017, which mandates a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.
Decision
-
In Favor of Assessee (Matter Remanded): The impugned adjudication order was set aside due to non-compliance with statutory natural justice requirements.
-
Violation of Section 75(4): The court held that under Section 75(4), granting an opportunity of personal hearing is obligatory whenever an adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee.
-
Adjudication Vitiated: The failure to provide a personal hearing vitiated the entire adjudication process.
-
Remand with Liberty: The matter was remanded, granting liberty to the Revenue to proceed afresh after providing a proper personal hearing to the petitioner.
Key Takeaways
-
Mandatory Statutory Duty: Section 75(4) of the GST Act makes a personal hearing mandatory whenever an adverse order is proposed or when a specific request is made by the tax office.
-
Vitiation of Order: An administrative or statutory order passed in breach of natural justice without granting a personal hearing is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Pooja Exports
v.
State of Punjab
Ashwani kumar Mishra, Actg. CJ.
and Rohit Kapoor, J.
and Rohit Kapoor, J.
CWP No. 23499 OF 2026 (O & M)
AUGUST 25, 2026
Amit Bajaj, Adv. for the Petitioner. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG for the Respondent.
ORDER
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Actg. C.J. – At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the order dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-2) primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned.
2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Section 75(4) of the Act, reads as under:-
“Section 75(4) in The Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
(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.”
4. Similar issue also came up for adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court in Kemexel Ecommerce (P.) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [CWP-33977 of 2025, dated 24.03.2026], wherein, the Division Bench held as under:-
“10. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned adjudication/assessment order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act.
5. In that view of the matter, the present petition also stands disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce (P.) Ltd. (supra).
6. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.