GST authorities must grant a personal hearing before passing an adverse adjudication order.

The petitioner challenged an ex parte adjudication order dated 6 March 2024 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

He contended that the show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the GST portal’s “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, preventing him from responding, and that he learned of the order only after receiving a bank recovery notice on 2 April 2026.

The State submitted that the petitioner had filed no reply or request for a personal hearing.

The Court found prima facie that the notice and order had been uploaded under that tab without separate intimation, and that the petitioner had thereby been unable to reply.

Whether the adjudication order and consequential recovery notice should be set aside where the show-cause notice and order were uploaded only under the portal’s “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, allegedly preventing the petitioner from responding.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing before an adverse adjudication order was passed, despite not having requested one in writing.

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where the person chargeable with tax or penalty requests it in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated against that person.

The Court also considered the Division Bench decision in Goutam Bhowmik v. State of West Bengal, (2024) 158 taxmann.com 399 (Calcutta), which held that Section 75(4) makes a hearing mandatory when an adverse decision is contemplated.

The Court considered the petitioner’s inability to respond in light of the fact that the notice and adjudication order had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, with no separate intimation.

It also noted that the summary of the show-cause notice showed that a personal hearing had been denied.

Applying Section 75(4), the Court treated a hearing as necessary because an adverse decision was contemplated; the absence of a written hearing request did not remove that obligation.

It directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive reply within three weeks of communication of the order, and directed the adjudicating authority to consider the reply, afford a personal hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks, to be communicated within a further week.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.