Top Stories GST Case Digest: Violation of Section 75 of GST Act Following is a compilation of all the stories on ‘Violation of Section 75 of GST Act’, reported at Taxscan.in By Avinash Kurungot – On January 2, 2025 4:03 pm – 16 mins read Section 75 is a key provision within the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 which provides a detailed framework for the determination of tax liability under various circumstances. The section outlines procedural safeguards, time limits for tax recovery, and conditions under which interest and penalties can be levied. It emphasizes transparency in adjudication, preventing arbitrary or excessive demands by tax authorities. Section 75 mandates the issuance of proper show-cause notice before the determination of tax liability. Section 75(12), for instance, deals with cases involving self-assessed taxes, where any default in payment automatically invites recovery proceedings by the Revenue. Other provisions focus on the need for reasonable cause and the imposition of proportional penalties in cases of evasion, fraud, or willful suppression of facts. Section 75 has often been the subject to judicial intervention, especially in cases of procedural lapses. Courts have consistently stressed the need for adherence to procedural safeguards to uphold taxpayers’ rights. Numerous instances of misuse, including raising illegitimate demands without substantiating fraud or suppression, have also been a recurring theme in litigation involving Section 75. Courts have often advised that tax authorities exercise their powers judiciously and not misuse Section 75 for coercive recoveries.
Courts have also clarified the interplay between Section 75 and other provisions, such as Section 73 and 74, addressing overlapping aspects of tax recovery and penalties. The Judiciary has many a time, donned the role of a guard, striking a balance between safeguarding government revenues and protecting taxpayers from arbitrary actions. This digest aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of significant cases, highlighting key judgments where Section 75 has been deliberated. It seeks to offer insights into evolving jurisprudence, procedural intricacies, and the jurisdictional courts’ approach to safeguarding taxpayer rights under the GST framework. Order passed in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice u/s 75(4) of GST Act: Kerala HC demands Fresh Order M/S.KPB CHITS LIMITED vs JOINT COMMISSIONER TAX PAYERS SERVICES CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1314 The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, directing the department to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The court observed that “the doctrine ‘he who hears must decide/he who decides must hear’ applies to statutory authorities and their decisions, but not to institutional decisions, which negate the doctrine. The determination as to whether tax has not been paid, short paid, or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, etc., requires individual adjudication and decision by the ‘proper officer’. If the officer who hears it does not render the decision determining the tax, it would amount to a violation of principles of natural justice.” GST Dept admits Violation of Personal Hearing mandated u/s 75(4): Madras HC Quashes Assessment Order Signet Industries Limited vs The State Tax officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2171 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) assessment order after the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) department agreed that they indeed passed the order without providing a personal hearing opportunity which is mandatory under Section 75 (4) of the Goods and Service ( GST ) Act, 2017 A single bench led by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the principles of natural justice were violated since no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted before passing the adverse assessment order. The court observed that Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing, which was not provided in this case. The court found that since the assessment order was set aside, the attachment of the bank account could not be sustained. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter to the GST authorities for fresh adjudication, and the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account was lifted immediately. No opportunity Provided for Hearing: Kerala HC sets aside Assessment Order passed in Violative of S.75 (4) of GST Act JULIE JOSE vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1476 The Kerala High Court set aside the assessment order passed in violation of section 75 (4) of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The section mandates an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
Considering the aforesaid provision and facts, the single judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh found that “there has been violation of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the GST Act and, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 1st respondent for passing fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 20.09.2023 and make his submission with respect to the Show Cause Notice issued to him for finalization of the assessment order. It is made clear that no notice of hearing shall be given to the petitioner.” The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. Personal Hearing Mandatory u/s 75(4) of GST Act, even if otherwise opted for: Madras HC Gabriel India Limited vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1987 The Madras High Court observed that personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75 (4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, even if otherwise opted for. The issue to be decided was whether the contention that the absence of a personal hearing opportunity before passing the order constitutes a violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, or not. Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy observed remitted the matter to the relevant authority for reconsideration, emphasizing a detailed order in line with the law, after considering the reply and providing the petitioner with a personal hearing opportunity.
The court agreed to the suggested personal hearing date of 12.12.2023 or any other date set by the respondents, communicated in writing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. No Mandatory Personal Hearing granted u/s 75(4) of GST Act: Madras HC quashes Assessment Order Sri Gayathri Agencies vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 501 The Madras High Court quashed assessment order on the ground that no mandatory personal hearing granted under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017. The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “In the assessment proceedings, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This being the case, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned assessment order has been passed contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017, which mandates personal hearing, the impugned assessment order, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 has to be quashed.” The Bench also noted that “For the foregoing reasons, the impugned assessment order passed in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law. Denial of Personal Hearing due to Printing Error in GST SCN Reply Form: Madras HC sets aside Order MATCON IMPEX vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1908 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside the order dated April 29, 2024, citing a violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was denied a personal hearing due to a printing error in the GST Show Cause Notice ( SCN) reply form, contrary to the mandate under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Service Tax Act. The bench observed that the petitioner had indeed requested a personal hearing in their reply dated March 4, 2024. The court noted that Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted, particularly when an adverse order is to be passed. Since the petitioner was denied this opportunity, the bench concluded that the order dated April 29, 2024, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy, presiding over the single bench, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner has been directed to file their reply or objection, along with any required documents, within two weeks. Upon receipt, the respondent is to provide a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before passing any orders on merits, as per the law. Madras HC sets aside GST Assessment Order and Recovery Notice over Personal Hearing denial Prosign Communications vs The Deputy State Tax Officer III CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1151 The Madras High Court has set aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order and recovery notice over denial of the Personal Hearing which is a mandatory under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act. The court found that the respondent failed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner despite the statutory requirement. As a result, the impugned orders were interfered with. Consequently, a Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the challenged orders and remanded the matters to the respondent for reconsideration.
The respondent was instructed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue fresh orders within two months. S.75(5) of GST Act Violated By Denying Opportunity to be Heard: Madras HC Quashes Adverse GST Order Krith Enterprises vs The State Tax Officer (FAC) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2018 In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed an adverse GST order against an assessee observing a violation of the GST Act’s provisions regarding fair hearings. After evaluating the case, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, presiding over the case, sided with the assessee noting that the company had not been given a sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing, and their submissions had not been adequately considered. Acknowledging the validity of the petitioner’s claims, the court quashed the December 30 order. The court further ordered the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand within four weeks and remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for reconsideration. The assessee-company was instructed to submit its reply within two weeks of receiving the court’s order, after which the authorities were required to send a physical notice with at least 14 days’ notice for the next hearing. Objective of GST Section 75(4) is to ensure Opportunity of Hearing is given before any Adverse Order is Passed: Karnataka HC M/S BREAKBOUNCE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2293 The Karnataka High Court, setting aside the GST recovery proceedings, has emphasised that the objective of Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST Act ), 2017 is to ensure that a fair opportunity for hearing must be provided before passing any adverse order.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadadv heard both sides. The court noted that the order was issued ex-parte without the petitioner’s input. While acknowledging that electronic service of notice may generally suffice, the court determined that, in this case, substantive rights were at stake, warranting a remand to allow the petitioner another chance to respond to the show-cause notice dated September 27, 2023. The court emphasised that the objective of Section 75(4) is to ensure an opportunity is given before any adverse order is passed. Allahabad HC warns of Disciplinary Action and Heavy Costs on GST Officers for Denying Hearing Opportunity Ns Agro And Engineering Products vs State of U.P. and Another CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1100 The Allahabad High Court has warned the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh of disciplinary action and heavy costs on the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) officials who denied the opportunity for hearing from the taxpayer. The court noted the violation in Principles of Natural Justice. The court noted Section 75(4) of the GST Act explicitly states that an opportunity for a hearing must be granted if requested in writing by the person charged with tax or penalty, or if an adverse decision is anticipated. However, the adjudicating authority neither issued a notice for the petitioner to participate in an oral hearing nor provided any opportunity for a personal hearing. The court, in addition to warning of disciplinary proceedings, considered imposing heavy costs due to the conduct of the GST official. Furthermore, the counsel for the respondent assured the court that such occurrences would not be repeated in the future. No Personal Hearing granted u/s 75 (4) of GST Act: Madras HC quashes Order on Gross Violation of Natural Justice Principles Sendhil Kumar vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 352 The Madras High Court quashed order on gross violation of natural justice principles as no personal hearing granted under Section 75 (4) of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.
Admittedly, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the impugned assessment proceedings as seen from the impugned Assessment order. An adverse decision has also been taken by the respondent against the petitioner in the impugned assessment order. The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “therefore, necessarily the impugned assessment order has to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017 and remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.” Madras HC sets aside GST Assessment Order and Recovery Notice Over Personal Hearing Denial M/s. Prosign Communications vs The Deputy State Tax Officer III CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 874 The Madras High Court has set aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order and recovery notice over denial of the Personal Hearing which is a mandatory under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act. The court found that the respondent failed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner despite the statutory requirement. As a result, the impugned orders were interfered with. Consequently, a Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the challenged orders and remanded the matters to the respondent for reconsideration.
The respondent was instructed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue fresh orders within two months. Failure to Comply Provision of sec. 75(4) of CGST Act 2017 Invalidates Entire Order: Calcutta HC Arup Mallick vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and State Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1824 In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with statutory provision which mandates consideration of explanation on the part of assessee before passing adverse order invalidates such order. Even though the petitioner was duly served with a show cause notice in Form GSTDRC01, the petitioner failed to file any response to the same, on account of being not well, for which medical prescriptions were also attached, added the Bench. The Single Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that as per section 75 (4) of the act affording an opportunity of hearing is mandated where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax, or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Personal Hearing under GST is Mandatory for Adverse Orders: Allahabad HC M/S Prakash Iron Store vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. Of State Tax )Lko. And 2 Others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2571 The Allahabad High Court ruled that personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, before passing adverse orders.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal relied on the precedent set in Party Time Hospitality v. State of U.P., that the opportunity for a personal hearing is integral to the principles of natural justice and compliance with Section 75(4). The absence of this procedural safeguard rendered the original order and the appellate order unsustainable. Thus, the Court quashed both orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority, directing it to provide the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing and to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. Hearing Opportunity is Mandatory u/s 75(4) of GST Act for determination of Tax Liability by Revenue Authorities: Allahabad HC Eveready Industries India Ltd vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1365 In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that an opportunity for hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST) Act. The High Court, comprised of a division bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh and Justice Sangeeta Chandra, disagreed with the argument of the respondent. The bench observed that “it is evident from the scheme of Section 74 that initially a notice along with a statement of tax payable along with penalty has to be issued by the proper officer within the time limit as prescribed, to which a representation can be made by the assessee in case he is dissatisfied with such computation of tax and penalty. On the other hand, if the assessee pays the amount as given in the notice along with interest payable thereon and penalty, then the proper officer may issue orders that may conclude the proceedings”.
Personal Hearing under GST Act Mandatory not only when requested but also for Adverse Orders: Madras HC J-Lin Constructions vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1353 In a recent and significant ruling, the Madras High Court observed that the Personal Hearing under Section 75(4) of GST Act ( Goods and Services Tax ), 2017 is mandatory not only when requested but also should be given to the proposed adverse orders. The court observed that under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the applicable GST enactments, a personal hearing is mandatory not only when requested but also when an adverse order against the taxpayer is proposed. In this case, the GST liability was confirmed without providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. Due to this violation of a mandatory requirement, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 19.09.2023 were set aside, and the matters were remanded for reconsideration. The petition was disposed of by directing the respondent-department to give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and then issue fresh orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Mandatory Hearing Emphasised for Adverse Decisions u/s 75 of UP GST Act, even with ‘NO’ Click on Personal Hearing Request: Allahabad HC M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 163 In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that the hearing is mandatory for the adverse decisions under Section 75 of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax ( UP GST ) irrespective of ‘NO’ click on the personal hearing request by the GST department. The Section 75 of UP GST Act states that “An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”
As the current instances involved the imposition of both tax and penalties on the petitioners, and it was acknowledged that an unfavourable decision is anticipated for them, it is imperative, in accordance with Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, that the department provides the petitioners with a mandatory opportunity for a hearing. Cancellation of GST Retrospectively in Absence of Reply to Opportunity to Hear u/s 75(4) CGST Act granted through GST portal: Delhi HC sets aside Order M/S. VISHAL CHEM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 888 The Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of GST retrospectively in the absence of a reply to an opportunity to hear under section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) granted through the GST portal. It was observed that the proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is unsatisfactory, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. It was evident that the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja remitted matter to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Section 75(4) U.P. GST Act is Mandatory, Even if no Demand in Writing for Hearing is made out: Allahabad HC Quashes Order M/S Swati Poly Industries Pvt Ltd vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 705 In a significant case, the Allahabad High Court held that section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act is mandatory even if no demand in writing for hearing is made out. Therfore, the bench quashed the order passed without giving opportunity for hearing to the petitioner.
The standing council for the state contended that the order dated 01.10.2020 also did not reveal that any personal hearing was accorded to the petitioner prior to passing of the order, as such, the inescapable conclusion from the material available on record is that petitioner was not granted personal hearing which is required and is mandatory under Section 75(4), as such, on that ground alone the order dated 01.10.2020 is quashed. The respondents should be at liberty to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law afresh, if so advised. Thus, the single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Order issued without Offering Personal Hearing u/s 75(4) of GST Act: Madras HC remands for Reconsideration M/s.Vaduvambikai Enterprises vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1318 The Madras High Court has remanded a GST order for reconsideration due to the absence of a mandatory personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy emphasised the mandatory nature of personal hearings under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The court noted that the absence of a personal hearing in cases where an adverse order against the taxpayer is proposed violates procedural fairness. The Madras High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted fifteen days to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated December 5, 2022.
The State Tax Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the petitioner’s reply. Failure to File reply to SCN will not Take Away Right of Personal Hearing u/s 75(4) of UPGST Act: Allahabad HC Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd vs State of U.P CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 375 In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the failure to file reply to show cause notice ( SCN ) will not take away right of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( UPGST Act ). A Division Bench of Justices Manjive Shukla and S.D. Singh observed that “In that regard, it has also been stated that the petitioner’s business operations are lying closed since 2020. Therefore, for reasons of disruption of business operation, petitioner committed a mistake in not responding the notice, within time. In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure.
The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out come of the proceedings.” Opportunity of Hearing is Mandatory u/s 75(4) of UPGST Act before Imposing Tax or Penalty: Allahabad HC M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 272 In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court observed that the opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act) before imposing the tax or penalty. A Division Bench comprising Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Vivek Chaudhary observed that “Since in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as “NO” in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed.” S.107 of GST Act is a Complete Code, Excludes General Limitation Provisions: Allahabad HC Rejects Delay Condonation in Appeal M/S Umair Traders vs State Of Up And 2 Others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2128 The condonation application for delay in filing a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) appeal was rejected by the Allahabad High Court. The bench referred to the precedent where it was ruled that the Section 107 of the GST Act is a complete code and it excludes the general limitation provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, argued that the original tax demand order under Section 74 of the GST Act was issued without providing a hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. He also claimed that the authorities had failed to observe any willful intent to evade taxes, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 74. As highlighted in the Yadav Steel judgment, the importance of limitation periods in tax statutes, such as the GST Act, cannot be overstated. These statutes are crucial for the efficient collection of taxes, which are essential for the functioning of the state. Limitation provisions ensure the timely resolution of disputes, promoting efficiency and fairness in tax administration. Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside S. 74 GST Demand Notice and Order issued after Dropping S.61 Action M/S J.S.B. TRADING CO. vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2338 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand notice and order issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, following the earlier closure of proceedings under Section 61 of the Central GST Act. Violations of natural justice were noted, as no personal hearing was granted despite being mandatory under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth thus set aside the order dated June 14, 2023, and the notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The ruling reassures taxpayers that the GST framework does not permit reopening settled matters arbitrarily, and the actions must align with procedural fairness and statutory provisions.
Kerala HC quashes Assessment Order Passed without Affording Personal Hearing as u/s 75(4) of GST Act JULIE JOSE vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1368 A Single Bench of the Kerala High Court quashed an assessment order passed without affording personal hearing as under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The Court of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “, I find there has been violation of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the GST Act and, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 1st respondent for passing fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.” The petitioner was directed by the Court to appear before the State Tax Officer on 20.09.2023 and to make his submission with respect to the Show Cause Notice issued to him for finalization of the assessment order. It was also made clear that no notice of hearing shall be given to the petitioner.