Case Title: Tvl. M. Sampath v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Petition No.: W.P. Nos. 11661 & 11663 of 2025
Judgment Date: 01.04.2025
Category: Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing / Assessment Order
Relevant Sections: Section 75(4) and Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, 2017
Dispute Type: Assessment Order passed without personal hearing
Facts (Paras 3–5)
The petitioner, Tvl. M. Sampath, challenged assessment orders issued under the GST Act for FYs 2018–19 and 2019–20 (Ref. Nos. ZD331023146915L & ZD3304241144104) on grounds of violation of natural justice. The show cause notices were issued but not responded to due to a lapse by the petitioner’s consultant. Consequently, the department passed ex parte orders without granting a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that approximately 47% of the disputed tax (₹15,05,054 out of ₹32,00,554) had already been recovered, and thus requested that the orders be set aside and a fair opportunity be granted.
Questions for Consideration
Whether the impugned assessment orders passed without affording a personal hearing to the taxpayer violate the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017?
Observations (Paras 6–8)
The Court noted that the respondent’s counsel fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was given before passing the orders. Referring to the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which obliges the proper officer to grant an opportunity of hearing when requested or when adverse decisions are contemplated, the Court observed that the orders were passed in violation of this principle. The absence of such opportunity rendered the proceedings unsustainable.
Judgment (Paras 7–8)
The Court held that the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 15.04.2024 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, they were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the respondents for fresh adjudication.
The petitioner was directed to file a detailed reply within three weeks, and the department was instructed to issue a 14-day notice for personal hearing and then pass a reasoned order on merits, in accordance with law.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Sr. No. | Case Name | Citation / Court | Ratio / Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No specific precedents cited | – | Decision turned on statutory principle of audi alteram partem under Section 75(4) CGST Act. |
Between Fine Lines
The ruling reinforces that personal hearing is a statutory and not discretionary right under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Even if the taxpayer fails to respond to the show cause notice, the department must provide an opportunity for oral submission before finalizing assessment. Departments should institutionalize a robust hearing mechanism to avoid remands and ensure fair adjudication.
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.”
 of the CGST Act.){kind=link}