A personal hearing cannot precede the deadline for replying to a show-cause notice.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 11 February 2025 under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, demanding tax, interest and penalty, and an appellate order dated 13 October 2025 dismissing its appeal as time-barred

The show-cause notice, issued on 7 October 2024, required a reply by 7 November 2024 but scheduled the personal hearing for 23 October 2024—before the reply deadline

The petitioner also contended that the notice had only been uploaded to the GST portal and had not been physically served

It relied on the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, W.P. (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, concerning the sequencing of the reply and hearing

1. Whether fixing the personal hearing before the deadline for filing a reply to the show-cause notice rendered the hearing ineffective and breached the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the assessment and appellate orders could stand in light of that procedural defect

Sections 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST/UKGST Act provide for an opportunity of hearing where requested in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated, and permit adjournment for sufficient cause, subject to the statutory limit

The Court relied on the principle that where a statute prescribes the manner in which an act is to be performed, it must be performed in that manner, and on the reasoning in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, W.P. (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, that the statutory procedure does not permit a personal hearing to be fixed before the time allowed for filing a reply has expired

The show-cause notice allowed the petitioner until 7 November 2024 to reply but scheduled the hearing for 23 October 2024, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to submit its reply before the hearing

The State’s counsel did not dispute that the hearing, fixed before the reply deadline, was ineffective and had resulted in a breach of natural justice

The Court therefore found the resulting assessment and appellate orders unsustainable

Although the petitioner also challenged the mode of service, the Court did not determine that contention

It remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to proceed from the show-cause notice stage, allow the petitioner to file its reply, and thereafter fix a date for personal hearing

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly