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

The petitioner-firm challenged the order dated 18 December 2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/UKGST Act, demanding tax of ₹1,87,258.05 and penalty of ₹43,734, totalling ₹2,30,992.05.

A show-cause notice dated 16 September 2025 granted the petitioner time to submit its reply by 15 October 2025, but fixed the date of personal hearing as 29 September 2025, before the expiry of the reply period.

The petitioner contended that this procedure rendered the opportunity of hearing ineffective and further submitted that the notice had only been uploaded on the GST portal and had not been physically served.

The respondents did not dispute that the personal hearing date preceded the last date for filing the reply.

The Court applied Sections 73 and 75 of the CGST Act/UKGST Act, particularly Section 75(4), which requires an opportunity of hearing where the person chargeable with tax or penalty requests it in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated, and Section 75(5), which permits adjournment for sufficient cause, subject to the statutory limit.

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench decision in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others, W.P. (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, holding that the statutory scheme requires the reply opportunity and personal hearing to be provided in an effective and sequential manner.

It further applied the settled principle that where a statute prescribes a particular manner of performing an act, the authority must act in that manner.

The Court held that fixing the personal hearing on 29 September 2025, while permitting the petitioner to file its reply until 15 October 2025, deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to place its case before the Proper Officer.

Since Section 75(4) contemplates an effective opportunity of hearing and Section 75(5) follows that provision within the statutory scheme, the authority could not conduct or fix the hearing before the period for filing the reply had expired.

The respondents’ concession that the hearing opportunity was ineffective established a breach of natural justice.

Although the petitioner also challenged service through the GST portal, the Court’s decision was principally founded on the invalid sequencing of the reply and hearing dates.

The order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Proper Officer to recommence proceedings from the stage of the show-cause notice, allow the petitioner to file its reply, and thereafter fix a date for personal hearing.

Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the Section 73 notice was directed to remain in deposit until the final order and thereafter abide by that order.

The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.