 violated natural justice.){kind=link}
Case Summary
Case Title: Laxmi Rolling and Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (Intelligence)
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Petition Numbers: W.P. Nos. 37428, 37434, 37432, 37411 & 37420 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 10.07.2025
Category of Dispute: Natural Justice – Requirement of Personal Hearing
Relevant Sections: Section 75(4), Section 74, Section 122(1A) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–3)
The petitioner, a steel manufacturer, was issued show cause notices for AY 2017-18 to 2022-23 alleging suppression of turnover based on electricity consumption data. The department concluded that production was understated and levied penalty under Section 74 read with Section 122(1A) of the CGST/TNGST Act. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply of 130 pages but contended that no personal hearing was provided as mandated under Section 75(4).
Dispute / Questions (Paras 2–4)
The core issue was whether the impugned orders dated 26.09.2024 were valid when the petitioner claimed denial of personal hearing, despite the respondent’s assertion that hearings were held on multiple dates.
Observations (Paras 5–6)
The Court examined the record and found that although the petitioner’s reply was reproduced, there was no clear evidence of proper personal hearing prior to passing of the impugned order. Section 75(4) requires that an assessee be given an opportunity of hearing whenever requested or when adverse decisions are contemplated. Non-compliance amounted to a violation of natural justice.
Judgment (Paras 7–8)
The Court quashed the assessment orders dated 26.09.2024 and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer with the following directions:
-
Petitioner to file a detailed reply with supporting documents within two weeks.
-
Respondent to issue a 14-day notice for personal hearing.
-
Matter to be decided afresh strictly in accordance with law.
Thus, the writ petitions were allowed, with no costs.
Cases Referred – Tabular Summary
| Case | Court | Ratio Decidendi |
|---|---|---|
| Various case laws referred by petitioner in reply (not detailed in judgment) | — | Petitioner cited them in defence but court did not elaborate as disposal was on natural justice grounds. |
Between Fine Lines
For industry, this judgment reinforces that no GST assessment can stand if personal hearing under Section 75(4) is denied. Even when detailed written submissions are filed, the department must provide a clear hearing opportunity before passing adverse orders. Businesses facing electricity-based or third-party data-based assessments should insist on this safeguard.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”