Case Reference
M/s Satguru Cattle Feeds and Chemoplast v. State of Bihar & Others
Patna High Court
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3094 of 2025
Category: Natural Justice / Assessment proceedings
Date of Judgment: 30 July 2025
Relevant Section: Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and BGST Act, 2017
Facts (Para 2–5)
The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, was subjected to an assessment order determining tax liability for FY 2017–18. After receiving a show cause notice (Annexure P-2), the petitioner filed its reply on 05.10.2023. However, no personal hearing was granted thereafter. The Department argued that the notice dated 28.09.2023 (Annexure P-2A) had already specified a hearing date, but the petitioner contended this was contrary to the statutory scheme which requires a hearing post-reply where an adverse decision is contemplated.
Questions in Dispute (Para 3–7)
The central issue was whether the assessing officer is bound to grant a personal hearing after considering the assessee’s reply, irrespective of a prior date being fixed in the notice, when an adverse order is proposed under Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.
Court’s Observations (Para 6–9)
The Court noted that Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act mandates an opportunity of hearing either upon request in writing by the assessee or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The petitioner’s case fell squarely within the second category. The Court emphasized that the proper officer must first consider the reply and only thereafter, if an adverse view is taken, provide a fresh opportunity of hearing. Reliance was placed on earlier coordinate Bench rulings in M/s Agarwal Tube Company v. UOI (CWJC No.14239/2024) and M/s Barhonia Engicon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (CWJC No.4180/2024) which had taken the same view.
Judgement (Para 9–11)
The Court held that since no hearing was given after the reply, the assessment order suffered from violation of principles of natural justice and was therefore quashed. The petitioner was directed to appear before the proper officer through an authorized representative within three weeks, and the officer was directed to grant a hearing and pass a fresh order within three months.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| M/s Agarwal Tube Company v. UOI & Others | CWJC No. 14239 of 2024, Patna HC | Assessment order set aside; hearing must be granted post-reply under Section 75(4). |
| M/s Barhonia Engicon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others | CWJC No. 4180 of 2024, Patna HC | Personal hearing mandatory before passing an adverse order; pre-fixed hearing dates not sufficient. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reinforces that GST officers cannot mechanically fix hearing dates in advance. A genuine opportunity of personal hearing must be granted after considering the taxpayer’s reply if an adverse order is being contemplated. For trade, it underscores the safeguard that any order passed without such hearing can be challenged and quashed for breach of natural justice.
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 CGST Act.){kind=link}