GST demand orders quashed as denial of personal hearing violated Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice

Case Details

• Case Title: Gillette India Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST), Intelligence-II

• Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

• Petition Nos.: W.P. No. 15997, 16003, 16011, 15850 & 15871 of 2025

• Date of Judgment: 09.06.2025

• Category: Natural Justice – Opportunity of Personal Hearing (Section 75(4) CGST/TNGST Act)

• Relevant Sections: Section 74 & Section 75(4) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017

Facts (Para 3, 4, 9)

Gillette India Ltd., engaged in manufacturing and trading of grooming and oral care products, was issued a show cause notice under Section 74 of TNGST Act on 10.06.2024, followed by three reminders. The petitioner filed replies and sought extension citing simultaneous GST assessments across states. By letter dated 12.08.2024, they specifically requested a personal hearing before any adverse order. However, the State Tax Officer, without granting such hearing, confirmed the demand by orders dated 12.03.2025.

Questions / Dispute (Para 4, 4.1, 9.2)

The dispute centered on whether the impugned orders were invalid due to:

1. Failure to provide mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) CGST/TNGST Act.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice when the petitioner had expressly sought an extension and opportunity of hearing.

Observations (Para 6–9.2)

The Court noted that the Department itself admitted no personal hearing was granted. Section 75(4) mandates such hearing if an adverse order is contemplated. Straightaway confirming proposals in SCN without affording hearing was held to be illegal. The Court accepted the suggestion of treating the impugned orders as SCNs afresh, allowing the petitioner to file additional replies.

Judgment (Para 9.3, 10)

• Impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 were set aside.

• Matters remanded to the respondent.

• Impugned orders to be treated as SCNs.

• Petitioner granted 6 weeks to file additional reply with documents.

• Department directed to grant 7 clear days’ notice for personal hearing and decide afresh in accordance with law.

• Writ petitions allowed; no costs.

Table of Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

This judgment underscores that GST adjudication orders confirming demands without granting personal hearing are legally unsustainable. Even if replies are filed, the Department must provide hearing before confirming proposals. For industry, this affirms the safeguard under Section 75(4) and strengthens the right to procedural fairness in GST disputes.

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.”