Failure to provide a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, particularly when the department provides incorrect documents in the Show Cause Notice, violates statutory obligations and principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting demand order void.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated December 25, 2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ward 5, Chandigarh, whereby a demand of Rs.57,93,127/-, including interest and penalties has been raised for the period April, 2021 till March, 2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) The petitioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”) and Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the UTGST Act”) read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the IGST Act”) with GSTIN : 04ABXPN8083A1ZE.

ii) Scrutiny proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on August 05, 2025 under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of alleged discrepancies found in the petitioner’s return in ASMT-10 form. In response thereto the petitioner filed a detailed reply on August 17, 2025.

iii) A Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as the summary “SCN”) in the form of GST DRC-01 dated September 26, 2025 was issued to the petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act by respondent No.2-CTO. As per the summary SCN, a liability of Rs.4,77,36,591/-, including interest and penalty was proposed to be imposed on the petitioner unless suitable explanation was provided.

iv) In the summary SCN, the documents relating to a corporation/firm by the name of ‘Arihant’ were uploaded instead of documents relating to the petitioner firm i.e ‘Arpit Advertising’. The petitioner was given till October 27, 2025 to file its reply. The representative of the petitioner firm approached the department and conveyed the lapse on its part to provide a detailed SCN to it, leading the petitioner firm not being able to provide a detailed reply.

v) Furthermore, since no personal hearing was provided to the representative of the firm on October 27, 2025, he had no option but to upload the detailed reply that was filed in response to ASMT-10. Without addressing the petitioner’s concern on December 25, 2025, the impugned order demanding Rs. 57,93,127/-, for the tax period from April 2021 to March, 2022 was uploaded on the portal of CTO.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that instead of issuing a SCN to the petitioner for filing a detailed reply and affording an opportunity of personal hearing as mandatorily required under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, the respondent authorities illegally and arbitrarily passed/uploaded the impugned order dated December 25, 2025 demanding an amount of Rs.57,93,127/- from the petitioner firm.

4. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the provisions of Section 75 (4) of the CGST Act, which provides for an opportunity of personal hearing where the assessee requests for the same in writing or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. From the documents available on the portal, it is clear that the petitioner has prayed for a personal hearing which for reasons best known to themselves, was not provided by the authorities concerned. Therefore, he prays for setting-aside of the impugned order dated December 25, 2025 and remanding the case back to respondent No.2-CTO for passing of a fresh order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as statutorily mandated.

5. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and fairly does not deny the factum of documents relating to a different firm being uploaded by the department along with the summary SCN.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

6. This Court h