Personal hearing under GST cannot precede the deadline for filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

The petitioner-firm challenged the order dated 20 December 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-01, Rudrapur, under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UKGST Act, raising a demand of ₹1,24,497 towards tax, ₹82,209 as interest, and ₹20,000 as penalty, totalling ₹2,26,706.

A show-cause notice dated 13 August 2025 granted the petitioner time to submit its reply by 13 September 2025 but fixed the date of personal hearing on 21 August 2025, before the expiry of the period for filing the reply.

The petitioner contended that such a hearing was procedurally invalid and violated the principles of natural justice.

The State did not dispute that the personal hearing had been fixed before the last date for filing the reply.

The Court applied Sections 73, 74 and 75 of the CGST/UKGST Act, particularly Section 75(4), which requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where requested in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated, and Section 75(5), which permits adjournment of the hearing for sufficient cause, subject to the statutory limit.

Reading these provisions conjunctively, the Court held that the assessee must have a meaningful opportunity to submit a reply before the personal hearing is conducted.

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench decision in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, W.P. (M/B) No. 123 of 2025, which held that statutory procedures must be followed in the manner prescribed and that fixing a hearing before the expiry of the reply period is contrary to the scheme of the Act.

The procedure also had to conform to the principles of natural justice.

The show-cause notice granted the petitioner time until 13 September 2025 to file its reply, but the authority fixed the personal hearing for 21 August 2025, thereby requiring the petitioner to be heard before the completion of the reply stage.

Since the statutory scheme contemplates an effective opportunity to respond to the allegations and thereafter an opportunity of personal hearing, the hearing fixed prematurely could not constitute a meaningful or effective hearing.

The State’s failure to dispute this procedural defect confirmed the breach of natural justice.

Consequently, the assessment order founded on the defective procedure could not be sustained.

The assessment order dated 20 December 2025 was accordingly quashed.

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

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending application.