Failure to provide the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) vitiates an adverse GST assessment order.

The petitioner challenged the appellate authority’s order dated 18 July 2025, which refused to entertain its appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 against an order dated 4 June 2022 passed under Section 74 concerning the tax period April 2019 to March 2020.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court against the Section 74 order; by order dated 14 May 2025, the writ petition was declined on the ground of an alternative remedy, with liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 along with an application for condonation of delay.

The adjudicating order alleged that 11 e-way bills had been generated and subsequently cancelled, purportedly enabling repeated transportation of similar goods to evade tax.

Although the proper officer stated that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing, the record did not show that any specific date, time, and venue for personal hearing had been notified before the Section 74 order was passed.

The Court applied the multi-tier adjudicatory scheme under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, including the opportunity to respond to the pre-show-cause communication in Form GST DRC-01A and to the show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01.

Section 75(4) mandates that, where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person chargeable with tax, the proper officer must afford an opportunity of personal hearing irrespective of whether such hearing has been specifically requested.

The statutory hearing requirement is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with merely because the taxpayer was otherwise given an opportunity to submit documents or a written reply.

The Court also referred to Section 74(9), under which the adjudicating order was passed, and Section 107, which provides the statutory appellate remedy.

The Court found that the alleged hearing of the petitioner’s representative on 11 November 2020 had taken place before the show-cause notice dated 13 April 2022 and therefore could not constitute the personal hearing required before adjudication of that notice.

Although the proper officer recorded that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing and had failed to provide a reply or supporting documents concerning the cancelled e-way bills, the record contained no notice specifying a personal-hearing date, time, and venue.

Since an adverse order under Section 74 was contemplated, Section 75(4) imposed an independent and mandatory obligation to provide such hearing.

The alleged irregularities concerning the e-way bills could therefore be reconsidered only after compliance with the statutory hearing requirement.

The order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the proper officer.

The petitioner was permitted to file and upload its response to the show-cause notice dated 13 April 2022 within two weeks; upon such filing, the proper officer was directed to notify the date of personal hearing through an appropriate notice on the common portal.

The proper officer was directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of the hearing, without granting unnecessary adjournments, even if no response was filed.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.