Kerala High Court Cancels Order Due to Violation of Section 75(4) of CGST Act

An assessment order passed without affording a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017 has been dismissed by the Single Bench of the Kerala High Court.

The current writ petition has been submitted by Julie Jose, who is subject to the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Service Tax (SGST) regulations, contesting an assessment order made under Section 73 of the Kerala GST Act.

The sole argument presented in the writ petition is that the petitioner was not granted a required hearing opportunity, as stipulated in Section 75 of the GST Act. The Government Pleader did not contest this argument made by the petitioner’s Counsel.

The petitioner had urged a personal hearing regarding the outcome of the challenged order itself. Despite this request, the assessment was carried out under Section 73 of the Kerala GST Act without providing a chance for a personal hearing.

Section 75(4) of the GST Act specifies that a hearing opportunity should be granted when a written request is received from the individual liable for tax or penalties, or when an adverse decision is being considered against them.

Read Also: Allahabad HC Cancels Order Passed U/S 75(4) Without Hearing Opportunity to Petitioner

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh of the Court noted that there had been a violation of Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the GST Act. Consequently, the challenged order has been annulled, and the matter has been referred back to the first respondent for the issuance of a new assessment order after giving the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.

The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the State Tax Officer on September 20, 2023, to present their case regarding the Show Cause Notice issued for finalizing the assessment order. It was emphasized that no separate notice for the hearing would be issued to the petitioner. Harisankar V. Menon represented the petitioner, while Jasmine M. M. served as the Government Pleader for the respondents.