Section 75(4) Personal Hearing Before Reply Deadline Invalidates GST Orders: HCs

Summary: The article examines the timing and mandatory nature of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, including its application where a taxpayer selects ‘No’ for personal hearing, where the hearing is fixed before the reply deadline, where the reply and hearing dates coincide, and in refund proceedings under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The article relies on reported orders from six High Courts between 2022 and 2026. The decisions discussed include Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial-tax, B.L. Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P., Mohini Traders v. State of U.P., Shree Gurukrupa Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat v. State Tax Officer, Yadav Trailor Transport Co. v. Union of India, Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Swiftline Transport Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P., Modine Thermal Systems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand, Abuturrab Agencies v. Commissioner, State Tax, M/s Balwinder Sood and Sons v. State of Punjab, Hitachi Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., M/s Ambika Kids Wear v. State of U.P., Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Credit Agricole CIB Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India. The reported authorities discussed in the article hold that a hearing must be offered where an adverse decision is contemplated; a ‘No’ selection does not override the statutory mandate; a hearing fixed before the reply deadline does not provide a meaningful opportunity; a reply deadline and hearing date should not coincide; and the same underlying hearing principle applies to refund rejection under Rule 92(3). The article also notes the Gujarat High Court’s discussion of the ‘three hearings’ principle through the lineage of Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and service-tax adjudication, while distinguishing that position from the plain-text requirement of Section 75(4).

When “Personal Hearing” Isn’t Really a Hearing
A Section 75(4) Reckoning: Why Courts Keep Striking Down the Sequence of GST Notices

Synopsis

• A recurring defect in GST show cause notices — fixing the personal hearing date before the reply is due, ignoring the taxpayer’s ‘No’ selection obligation under Section 75(4), or fixing reply and hearing on the same day — has been struck down by six High Courts between 2022 and 2026.
• This article answers five practical questions on the timing of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, relying only on the text of the reported orders.

Introduction

Anyone who has represented a client before GST authorities has seen this pattern: a show cause notice arrives with a date fixed for personal hearing — except that date falls before the deadline for filing a reply. Or the taxpayer marks “No” against the personal hearing option in Form GST DRC-06, and the department treats that as the end of the matter. Or, worse, the notice fixes the reply date and the hearing date on the very same day, making it impossible to have said anything meaningful by the time anyone shows up to be “heard.”

None of this is a paperwork quirk. It goes to the heart of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and — as a growing, consistent body of High Court rulings shows — it renders the resulting order legally unsustainable. This article answers five questions that come up constantly in adjudication and refund matters, relying strictly on the text of the reported judgments.

The Statutory Anchor — Section 75(4)

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 reads: “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.”

Two limbs, joined by ‘or’. A hearing is due either when requested, or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated — regardless of request. That second limb is where most of the litigation lives.

Question 1: Is personal hearing mandatory even if the taxpayer marks ‘No’ on the portal?

Yes — and this is now settled across multiple High Courts.

The starting point is the Allahabad High Court’s 2022 ruling in Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial-tax (Writ Tax No. 1029/2021; [2022] 136 taxmann.com 275). The Court held in unambiguous terms that where an adverse decision is contemplated, the person need not even request an opportunity of personal hearing — it is mandatory for the authority to afford it regardless. The department’s reliance on an unrelated Supreme Court ruling was rejected as inapposite, and the order was quashed with costs of ₹10,000, with a direction that a copy go to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., for compliance across all field formations.

That reasoning has since been extended specifically to the ‘No’ option itself. The Orissa High Court, in Khani Khyatigrasta Gramya Committee v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and GST ([2024] 162 taxmann.com 559), quashed an order where the personal hearing columns in the notice were simply marked ‘NA’, relying on two Allahabad High Court rulings squarely on point — B.L. Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P. ([2023] 153 taxmann.com 659), holding an assessee is not required to request a hearing, and, directly on the ‘No’ portal-option fact pattern, Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. ([2023] 151 taxmann.com 507), which held it mandatory to provide a hearing even where the assessee has opted ‘No’ on the common portal.

The Gujarat High Court has gone a step further. In Shree Gurukrupa Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (R/SCA No. 6483/2024, order dated 18.03.2026) and Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat v. State Tax Officer (R/SCA No. 6209/2024, order dated 02.04.2026), the State conceded that the scheme of Section 75(4) — read together with a pari materia adjournment provision — effectively envisages three personal hearing opportunities before an adverse order can be passed. It bears clarifying that this ‘three hearings’ principle is not drawn from any provision in the CGST Act itself. The lineage traces back to Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as applied to service tax adjudication under the Finance Act, 1994), which the Gujarat High Court had applied in an earlier service tax matter, Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd.. That reasoning was carried into the GST context in Yadav Trailor Transport Co. v. Union of India (R/SCA No. 3027/2025, dated 16.10.2025), which both Shree Gurukrupa and Komal Hemavat then followed. In both cases, the department’s actual conduct — one hearing, or none at all — fell short even of ordinary Section 75(4) compliance, and in each, the State expressly conceded that the taxpayer’s ‘No’ selection could not override the statutory mandate. The orders were quashed and remanded.

Bottom line: the DRC-06 ‘No’ checkbox is a convenience field, not a waiver. The obligation to offer a hearing sits with the officer, independent of what the assessee ticks. Practitioners outside Gujarat should note that the ‘three hearings’ extension is, at present, a Gujarat High Court position built on a service-tax analogy — useful persuasive material, but not yet a pan-India reading of Section 75(4) itself, which on its plain text requires one genuine opportunity of hearing, subject to the ordinary adjournment discipline in Section 75(5).

Question 2: Can the personal hearing be fixed before the reply due date?

No — and courts have used strikingly similar language to explain why.

In Swiftline Transport Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 1751/2025; [2025] 178 taxmann.com 381), the Allahabad High Court found that the reply was due on 22 June 2024 while the hearing had been fixed for 19 June 2024 — three days earlier. The Court held plainly that no personal hearing was granted in substance, since the hearing preceded the reply and the matter had effectively been decided ex parte. The order was quashed, with the assessee directed to file a fresh reply and the department directed to fix a fresh hearing date thereafter.

The Uttarakhand High Court used the memorable phrase ‘cart before horse’ in Modine Thermal Systems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand (W.P.(M/B) No. 123/2025; [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1252), holding that the submissions to be made during the personal hearing would necessarily be on the basis of the reply — so a hearing fixed ahead of the reply deadline defeats its own purpose. The Court read Sections 73, 74 and 75 conjunctively to reach this conclusion and set the assessment aside. It applied the same logic again in Abuturrab Agencies v. Commissioner, State Tax (W.P.(M/B) No. 166/2026; [2026] 185 taxmann.com 30), where the department did not even contest that the pre-reply hearing was ineffective.

Most recently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in M/s Balwinder Sood and Sons v. State of Punjab (CWP-20120-2026 (O&M), decided 07.07.2026), rejected the department’s argument that ‘the law does not mandate that the date of hearing can be fixed only after submission of reply’ outright — the Bench recorded that it was ‘not impressed’ by that submission, holding that affording a hearing without first taking the reply on record would clearly be violative of principles of natural justice.

Question 3: If a hearing is wrongly fixed before the reply, is a fresh hearing mandatory afterward?

Yes — this follows directly from the same set of rulings. In each of Swiftline, Modine Thermal Systems and Abuturrab Agencies, the remedy ordered was not merely to note the defect: it was to remand the matter specifically so that the taxpayer could file its reply first, and only then have a fresh personal hearing date fixed. The pre-reply hearing does not discharge the officer’s Section 75(4) obligation — in the eyes of these Courts, it never happened in any legally meaningful sense. A separate, post-reply hearing is not optional. It is the only way the obligation gets fulfilled.

Question 4: Can the reply date and the personal hearing date be the same day?

No. This should be avoided, and the position is clear on the reported authority.

In Hitachi Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 1255/2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:69048, decided 04.11.2025), the department conceded on instructions that the date of personal hearing and the date of filing reply were the same. The Allahabad High Court quashed the order, following the binding Division Bench precedent in Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Writ Tax No. 303/2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC:38820-DB). The Hitachi Systems judgment reproduces, in full, Office Memorandum No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh — the department’s own internal instruction to field formations, which records in terms that ‘in some cases, the date of personal hearing is on the same date to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted — this is non-est and this practice has to be discontinued.’

The same principle was applied again in M/s Ambika Kids Wear v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 870/2026, decided 02.06.2026), where the Bench found — on undisputed facts — that the personal hearing date coincided with the reply-filing deadline, and held this alone sufficient to vitiate the order, again applying Mahaveer Trading Company.

Mahaveer Trading Company is a Division Bench ruling and is therefore binding precedent within the Allahabad High Court. The department’s own memorandum independently and expressly records the same-day practice as defective. Taken together, this is a settled position — and a particularly strong one for practitioners to raise, since it rests on the department’s own written admission and not merely on judicial interpretation.

Question 5: Does this apply only to adjudication, or to refund proceedings as well?

Both — under two different provisions carrying the same underlying principle.

Section 75(4) governs adjudication under Chapter XV of the CGST Act. Refund rejections are governed separately by the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which requires that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Bombay High Court, in Credit Agricole CIB Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (WPL No. 23325/2024; [2024] 168 taxmann.com 351, decided 24.10.2024), applied precisely the same logic to a refund rejection. The show cause notice gave the taxpayer 15 days to reply, as Rule 92(3) requires; the reply was filed within that window; yet the department claimed a hearing had already been given several days before the reply was even due, relying on a screenshot from Form GST RFD-01. The Court found this ‘rather incomprehensible’, holding that the proviso to Rule 92(3) contemplates a reasonable opportunity to be heard, implying that such hearing should be after the reply is filed. The rejection orders were quashed and the matter remanded, with a direction that a proper hearing be given.

The takeaway: whether the statutory anchor is Section 75(4) or Rule 92(3), the underlying constitutional principle — audi alteram partem, hear the other side, and hear them after they have had the chance to speak — is identical.

Practical Takeaways

Key Points for Practitioners

• A hearing must be offered whenever an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of what the taxpayer selects on the DRC-06 portal option.
• A hearing fixed before the reply is due is not a hearing in the eyes of the law — it must be followed by a fresh, post-reply hearing date.
• Same-day fixation of the reply deadline and the hearing date must be avoided — it is squarely against binding Allahabad High Court precedent and the department’s own internal instruction.
• The same standard extends to refund rejections under Rule 92(3), not only to Section 73/74 adjudication.
• Where the hearing sequence has been mishandled, this ground is best raised at the earliest possible stage — ideally before a demand or rejection order is passed, rather than only in writ proceedings afterward.

Case Law Referred

******

Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s analysis of reported High Court judgments as of August 2026 and is intended for general professional information only. It does not constitute legal or tax advice for any specific matter, and readers facing an active GST proceeding are encouraged to seek advice tailored to their own facts.

About the Author: CA. Puneet Oberoi is a practising Chartered Accountant based in Jalandhar, Punjab, regularly sharing knowledge on GST compliance, adjudication, and appellate matters. He can be reached at +91-9417204253.