Fixing personal hearing before the deadline for filing reply violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner-firm challenged an assessment order dated 21.08.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UKGST Act, which demanded a total sum of Rs. 16,26,448 inclusive of tax, interest, and penalty

A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 09.05.2024, granting the petitioner until 09.06.2024 to submit a reply

However, the notice fixed the date for a personal hearing on 27.05.2024, which was prior to the deadline for filing the reply

The petitioner further contended that the SCN was only uploaded to the GST portal and not served via physical mode, leading to a lack of actual notice

1. Whether the procedure of fixing a personal hearing date prior to the deadline for submitting a reply to a Show Cause Notice is legally sustainable under the CGST/UKGST Act

2. Whether the scheduling of a personal hearing before the reply deadline constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice

The court applied the procedural requirements of Sections 73, 74, and 75 of the CGST/UKGST Act

Specifically, Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated, and Section 75(5) allows for adjournments for sufficient cause

The court relied on the precedent set in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand (WP (M/B) No. 123 of 2025), which established that the statutory scheme requires an assessee to have a meaningful opportunity to seek a hearing after responding to the notice, and that if a statute stipulates a specific manner of performance, it must be followed strictly

The court found that the Authority’s approach was fundamentally contrary to the scheme of the Act.

By fixing the personal hearing for 27.05.2024 while allowing the petitioner until 09.06.2024 to file a reply, the Authority rendered the "opportunity of hearing" illusory

The court noted that a personal hearing cannot be effective if it precedes the submission of the written defense.

Counsel for the Revenue conceded that this chronological error resulted in a hearing that was not "effective" and subsequently led to a breach of the principles of natural justice

Because the procedural mandate of the statute was bypassed, the resulting assessment order was deemed legally infirm

The court held that the personal hearing afforded was not effective due to being scheduled before the reply deadline, violating natural justice

The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to proceed from the stage of the Show Cause Notice, granting the petitioner the opportunity to file a reply followed by a properly scheduled personal hearing

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly