Adjudicating Authority Must Grant Personal Hearing Before Passing Adverse Order Under Section 75(4) Even If Unrequested

By | October 8, 2026
0 Comment
Adjudicating Authority Must Grant Personal Hearing Before Passing Adverse Order Under Section 75(4) Even If Unrequested
Issue
Whether the adjudicating authority is statutorily required under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act to grant an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order, even if the assessee has not explicitly opted or ticked for a personal hearing on the GST portal.
Facts
  • Impugned Order: An order under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand GST Act was passed against the assessee firm, creating demands for tax, interest, and penalty.
  • Absence of Hearing: The adjudicating authority passed the adverse order without granting any personal hearing to the assessee.
  • Portal Option Not Ticked: The assessee firm had not ticked the option requesting a personal hearing on the online GST portal.
  • Legal Challenge: The assessee invoked Section 75(4), contending that a personal hearing is mandatory before passing any adverse order and that the order violated natural justice and statutory mandate.
  • Revenue’s Stance: The Revenue argued that no personal hearing was due since the assessee had not opted for it on the portal.
Decision
  • The statutory obligation to grant a personal hearing under Section 75(4) survives even when an assessee has not explicitly opted for it on the portal (In favour of assessee/matter remanded).
  • Once an adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee, the adjudicating authority is duty-bound to afford a personal hearing (In favour of assessee/matter remanded).
  • Passing an adverse order without providing a personal hearing vitiates the proceedings due to a breach of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice (In favour of assessee/matter remanded).
  • The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the authority with liberty to issue a fresh order after affording a personal hearing (In favour of assessee/matter remanded).
Key Takeaways
  1. Mandatory Statutory Duty Under Section 75(4): Providing a personal hearing before issuing an adverse tax order is a non-negotiable statutory requirement for tax officers, not an optional step dependent on portal check-boxes.
  2. Unselected Portal Options Do Not Waive Natural Justice: An assessee’s failure to tick the “personal hearing” box on the GST portal does not extinguish their right to a hearing, nor does it relieve the authority from offering one before imposing tax liability.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shivtara Settering Services
v.
Commissioner, State Tax
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ.
and Alok Mahra, J.
Writ Petition (MB) No. 797 OF 2026
SEPTEMBER  24, 2026
Faizul Haque and Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.- The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by respondent no.3 under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby total tax liability of Rs.45,64,844/- (including penalty of Rs.22,82,422/-) has been imposed upon the petitioner firm.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner firm is that the Department has passed the impugned order without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. He further submits that in similar facts and circumstances, writ petition bearing Shivtara Developers v. State of Uttarakhand [Writ Petition (M/B) No.702 of 2026, dated 9-9-2026], challenging order under Section 74 of the Act, had been allowed and the impugned order therein has been quashed.
3. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that the petitioner firm had not opted for personal hearing and, therefore, it was not provided to the petitioner firm.
4. Section 75(4) of the Act reads as follows:-
“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.”
5. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and by various other High Courts that even if the assessee had not opted for personal hearing, in case, the revenue proposes to pass an adverse order, it is obligatory on its part to afford personal hearing to the assessee. The same view was taken by this Court while deciding the Shivtara Developers (supra).
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is, hereby, quashed. It shall be open to the Department to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
■