The petitioner, Parv Alloys & Metals, filed a challenge against an adjudication order issued by the respondent GST authorities following a show cause notice dated February 3, 2023, regarding tax liabilities for the 2017-18 financial year. Although the notice was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, the authorities explicitly marked “NA” for the date, time, and venue of a personal hearing.

Because the petitioner did not file a written response, the respondent-authorities proceeded to pass an adjudication order on May 19, 2023, requiring the deposit of demanded tax without granting an opportunity for a hearing. The court ultimately set aside this order, ruling that under Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act, a personal hearing is a mandatory statutory obligation whenever an adverse decision is contemplated, regardless of whether a written response was submitted.

Issue of the Case

Whether the respondent-authorities were legally obligated to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, even if the petitioner had failed to file a written response to the show cause notice?

Decision of the Court

The Court held that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, creates an absolute statutory obligation for the revenue department to provide an assessee with an opportunity for a personal hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated.

The court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner’s failure to file a written response waived this right, noting that a hearing remains essential as it allows the taxpayer to present original records, such as ledgers and account books, or offer oral arguments in their defense.

Consequently, the adjudication order dated May 19, 2023, was set aside, although the court granted the respondent-revenue liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against Parv Alloys & Metals provided they strictly adhere to the mandatory hearing requirements prescribed by law.