Under GST, personal hearing must follow the reply deadline; otherwise, assessment violates natural justice.

The petitioner-firm challenged an assessment order dated 3 August 2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/UKGST Act, raising a demand of ₹10,68,390.44 as tax, ₹9,47,634 as interest, and ₹1,06,839.04 as penalty, totalling ₹21,22,863.48.

It also challenged the appellate order dated 25 July 2025 dismissing its appeal as time-barred.

A show-cause notice dated 4 May 2024 granted time until 4 June 2024 to submit a reply, but fixed the date of personal hearing as 20 May 2024, before the expiry of the period for filing the reply.

The petitioner contended that the hearing was consequently ineffective and that the notice had not been served physically, but only uploaded on the GST portal, of which it allegedly had no knowledge.

Section 73 of the CGST Act/UKGST Act governs determination of tax, interest and penalty in cases covered by that provision.

Section 75(4) requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where the person chargeable with tax or penalty requests it in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated; Section 75(5) permits adjournment for sufficient cause, subject to the statutory limitation on the number of adjournments.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decision in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that the statutory scheme requires the assessee to have an effective opportunity to submit a reply before the personal hearing and that statutory procedure must be followed in the prescribed manner.

The denial of an effective opportunity constitutes a breach of natural justice.

The show-cause notice allowed the petitioner to file its reply until 4 June 2024 but scheduled the personal hearing for 20 May 2024.

Since the hearing preceded the last date for filing the reply, the petitioner could not meaningfully present its defence after considering and submitting its written response.

Applying Sections 75(4) and 75(5), and the principle stated in Modine Thermal Systems, the Court held that the hearing allegedly afforded by the respondents was not an effective hearing.

The State’s counsel did not dispute that the hearing had been fixed prematurely and that the procedure resulted in a violation of natural justice.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to sustain the consequential assessment and appellate orders.

It quashed the assessment order dated 3 August 2024 and the appellate order dated 25 July 2025, and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to recommence proceedings from the stage of the show-cause notice, grant the petitioner an opportunity to file its reply, and thereafter fix a date for personal hearing.

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