A GST assessment passed without a personal hearing violates natural justice and must be reconsidered.

The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled on 31 December 2024.

The petitioner submitted that it had provided an address for future communication but received no notice or communication there, and consequently did not respond to the show-cause notice or participate in a personal hearing.

The first respondent thereafter passed an assessment order dated 11 May 2026, and the petitioner’s bank account was attached.

The petitioner sought to have the order quashed and the account defrozen, offering to pay 10% of the disputed tax.

The respondents acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to payment of that amount.

Whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside because the petitioner was not given sufficient notice and an opportunity of personal hearing

Whether, upon setting aside the assessment order subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax, the bank-account attachment should be lifted

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles of natural justice, under which an affected taxpayer must receive a sufficient opportunity to respond and be heard before an adverse assessment order is made.

The Court referred generally to the CGST/TNGST framework in the writ prayer, but identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision.

The petitioner’s account of non-receipt of notices at the address provided for future communication was accepted, and the respondents admitted that no personal hearing had been given.

In those circumstances, the assessment had been made without sufficient opportunity to respond or be heard, contrary to natural justice, and was not sustainable.

The Court allowed the matter to be reconsidered on the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 10% of the disputed tax, and reasoned that the bank attachment could not survive once the impugned order was set aside, subject to proof of that payment.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.

The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

Axis Bank was directed to defreeze the account upon production of proof of payment.

The petition was disposed of without costs.