Case Reference: Palani Jayakumar v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (ST), Padi Assessment Circle
Court: Madras High Court
Petition Nos.: W.P. Nos. 8728 & 8736 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 13.03.2025
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Relevant Sections: Section 75(4) & Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017
Category: Natural Justice & Assessment Order under GST
Facts (Paras 3–5)
The petitioner, M/s J.K. Transport, challenged the assessment order dated 30.04.2024 and consequential bank account attachment notice dated 12.02.2025 issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act.
A show-cause notice was issued on 21.11.2023, granting time till 21.12.2023 to file a reply, and fixing personal hearing for 05.12.2023. The petitioner submitted a reply on 21.12.2023. However, the assessing authority passed the impugned order stating that “no reply was filed,” and also did not grant a personal hearing post-reply. The petitioner contended that such omission violated Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice.
Questions before the Court
Whether the assessment order and consequential recovery notice issued without considering the petitioner’s reply and without granting a post-reply personal hearing are sustainable under the CGST Act and principles of natural justice.
Court’s Observations (Paras 8–13)
The Court noted that:
-
The date of personal hearing (05.12.2023) was fixed before the expiry of the reply period (21.12.2023), defeating the purpose of hearing.
-
The petitioner had, in fact, filed a detailed reply on 21.12.2023, but the same was not considered by the assessing authority.
-
Passing an adverse order without post-reply hearing violated Section 75(4), which mandates a personal hearing before any adverse decision.
Thus, the assessment order suffered from procedural infirmity and lack of fair hearing, amounting to breach of natural justice.
Judgment (Paras 13–14)
The Hon’ble Court held that the order dated 30.04.2024 was contrary to Section 75(4) and quashed it. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration with the following directions:
-
Petitioner may file an additional reply within 15 days.
-
Respondent shall provide 14 days’ clear notice for personal hearing.
-
Fresh order to be passed on merits and in accordance with law.
-
Bank attachment to be lifted, as it could not survive once the assessment order was set aside.
The writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Sr. No. | Case Name | Court | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Palani Jayakumar v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (ST) | Madras High Court | Assessment order quashed and remanded for violation of Section 75(4) and lack of opportunity of hearing. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway)
This decision reiterates that no GST assessment order can stand if passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply or affording a proper hearing. Fixing a personal hearing before the expiry of reply time or ignoring a filed reply breaches Section 75(4) and violates natural justice.
For trade and industry: Always ensure that replies and personal hearing requests are duly acknowledged by the department; if ignored, the order is liable to be struck down.
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.”
 and natural justice, remanding matter for fresh consideration.){kind=link}