Top Stories Personal Hearing under GST is Mandatory for Adverse Orders: Allahabad HC [Read Order] 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. By Navasree A.M – On December 29, 2024 12:44 pm – 2 mins read The Allahabad High Court ruled that personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, before passing adverse orders. The petitioner, a bona fide business entity, contended that an inadvertent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim was rectified through a corrected return in July 2019. Despite this, a show-cause notice dated December 8, 2021, proposed a liability of ₹2,98,333, based on a survey conducted in August 2019.

Transform GST Compliance with Expert Drafting Skills – Click here to Register While the petitioner responded to the notice and requested a personal hearing, the assessing authority passed the order without granting one, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petition challenged two orders: the original order dated February 1, 2022, confirming a GST demand under Section 74 for FY 2017-18, and the appellate order dated April 24, 2024, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. The High Court reviewed the records, which revealed that the notice and subsequent reminders failed to specify the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing, instead marking the column for such details as “NA.” The Standing Counsel confirmed that no personal hearing was conducted, a clear breach of the statutory mandate. Transform GST Compliance with Expert Drafting Skills – Click here to Register

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.