Personal Hearing Under GST: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Passed Without Oral Hearing
The Bombay High Court, in Taiyo Nippon Sanso India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1966 of 2025, decided on 22 April 2026), has once again underlined a core procedural safeguard under the GST regime: when an adverse order is proposed, mere consideration of a written reply does not fulfil the statutory requirement of granting a personal hearing.
This decision, delivered in the context of a rectification proceeding under Section 161 of the CGST Act, clarifies that the principle of audi alteram partem is not diluted simply because the assessee has already filed detailed written submissions. The Court set aside the impugned rectification order for failure to grant a personal hearing and for non-consideration of a specific jurisdictional objection, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
Statutory Framework: Personal Hearing Under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act
Mandatory nature of hearing
The GST legislation embeds the right to a personal hearing within Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The provision expressly mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be given in two distinct situations:
- where an assessee specifically requests such a hearing in writing; or
- where the authority proposes to pass an order adverse to that assessee.
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act reads as follows:
“An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”
Two key aspects arise from this language:
Independent triggers
- A written request for hearing from the assessee; or
- The authority’s intention to issue an adverse decision.
Either trigger is sufficient by itself to activate the obligation to grant a hearing.
No substitution by written reply
The provision does not create any exception that allows the proper officer to bypass an oral hearing merely because the assessee has already filed extensive written submissions. Written representations and oral hearing are envisaged as complementary stages, not interchangeable options.
In other words, the statute ensures that before an order with adverse consequences is passed, the assessee has a real, live opportunity to explain documents, clarify doubts, and respond to the authority’s concerns in person (or through authorised representative), in addition to the written reply.
Case Overview: Taiyo Nippon Sanso India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Factual setting
In the Bombay High Court matter, the petitioner Taiyo Nippon Sanso India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial and medical gases. The company approached the department seeking rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act in relation to an earlier order.
Along with its rectification application, the petitioner filed a detailed set of written submissions and supporting documents. Among other aspects, the petitioner specifically objected to parallel proceedings by authorities under State GST when the same period had already undergone audit by the Central GST authorities. The contention was that once the Central GST audit for the relevant period had been conducted and concluded, the initiation of separate State proceedings for that very period lacked jurisdiction.
Impugned order and grievance
Despite this fact pattern:
- The rectification application was disposed of through an order that:
- did not provide any personal hearing to the petitioner, and
- did not address or deal with the objection related to overlapping Central and State proceedings.
The petitioner challenged this rectification order before the Bombay High Court, alleging:
- breach of natural justice owing to the absence of a personal hearing; and
- failure to consider a specific, material jurisdictional objection.
High Court’s decision and directions
The Bombay High Court accepted the challenge and held that: