Same Day Hearing Not Valid Opportunity; GST Order Set Aside by HC:

Court rules personal hearing must be meaningful; same-day hearing after reply is invalid
Personal hearing requires prior notice; same-day process held procedurally unfair

Same-Day Hearing Not Valid Opportunity; GST Order Set Aside by HC
The petitioner, M/s Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd., challenged a GST demand order dated 26.12.2025 along with related show cause notices. The core grievance was that the department failed to grant a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Department had issued a show cause notice requiring a reply, but did not separately notify any date for personal hearing. When the petitioner submitted its written reply, the authority recorded that the petitioner was “heard” on the very same day and proceeded to pass an adverse order. The petitioner contended that such a procedure deprived it of a fair opportunity to present oral submissions and amounted to a mere procedural formality.
Main Issue: Whether conducting a personal hearing on the same day as filing of reply, without prior notice, satisfies the requirement of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.
HC Held: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. It held that the requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4) is substantive and cannot be reduced to a ritualistic exercise. The court emphasised that a proper hearing necessarily requires prior intimation, enabling the assessee to prepare and present oral arguments effectively. The Court observed that a taxpayer filing a reply cannot reasonably be expected to be ready for oral submissions on the same day.
Treating such a situation as a “hearing” renders the process illusory and violative of natural justice. Thus, the Court concluded that the Department's action amounted to a denial of fair opportunity. The matter was remanded with directions to fix a fresh hearing date after due notice and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2192My Recent Articles
- ITAT Quashes Reassessment for Failure to Issue Mandatory Section 143(2) NoticePremium
- ITAT Quashes Section 153C Assessments Without Incriminating Material For Completed YearsPremium
- High Court Upholds DGGI Arrest Despite Prior State GST InvestigationPremium
- ITAT Holds Section 263 Assessment Cannot Survive After Revision Order Is QuashedPremium
- ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction on Interest From Co-operative BanksPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








