The Delhi High Court has clarified that the mere inability of the GST Department to produce documentary proof of dispatch of a personal hearing notice—such as dispatch register entries, speed post receipts, or email records—does not automatically establish that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the assessee. Emphasising substance over procedural technicalities, the Court held that absence of such proof alone cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when other surrounding facts may indicate that the assessee was aware of or had participated in the proceedings.
Background
Under GST adjudication proceedings, before passing an adverse order, the adjudicating authority is generally required to offer the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing, as part of the principles of natural justice and as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.
In this particular matter, a dispute arose over whether the Department had actually served a hearing notice and granted a personal hearing. The Department could not place on record traditional documentary proof of dispatch of the hearing notice—such as speed post receipts, dispatch register entries, or email logs.
Key Legal Issue
Whether the absence of documentary proof of dispatch of the personal hearing notice automatically implies that no personal hearing opportunity was given to the taxpayer.
Court’s Holding & Key Observations
1. Lack of Dispatch Proof ≠ No Hearing
The Division Bench held that:
- Just because the Department is unable to produce formal proof of dispatch of the personal hearing notice (e.g., postal receipts, portal records, email logs),
- It does not automatically follow that no personal hearing opportunity was granted.
In other words, mere absence of documentary evidence of service does not conclusively prove that no hearing was provided. The Court refused to entertain that argument as a standalone ground to quash the order.
Legal Implications
Burden of Proof
- The ruling underscores that the burden is on the Department to show how and when the notice was communicated, but absence of dispatch proof cannot by itself conclusively demonstrate procedural denial.
Focus on Substance Over Form
- The Court’s approach appears to balance procedural compliance with practical realities, recognizing that sometimes records might not be available despite actual communication having taken place.
Context with Related GST Procedural Law
While this case focuses on the specific evidentiary threshold regarding dispatch proof, the broader GST legal landscape on personal hearings and natural justice includes these principles:
🟢 Mandatory Hearing Opportunity:
Under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, even if not expressly requested by the taxpayer, the adjudicating authority must afford a personal hearing before issuing an adverse order—that is a statutory mandate and part of natural justice.
🟢 Consequences of No Hearing:
Courts have repeatedly quashed orders where no meaningful hearing was provided (e.g., lack of effective notice or no date/time communicated), holding such orders violative of natural justice.
🟢 Proof of Service Matters:
Other decisions (e.g., where email communication was accepted as sufficient service under Section 169) confirm that various modes of communication recognized by law can satisfy service requirements, provided actual communication is shown.
Practical Takeaways for GST Compliance
✔ Tax authorities should maintain proper records (portal logs, email/speed post proofs) to demonstrate service of notices/hearing dates.
✔ Absence of dispatch evidence alone is not dispositive—the Department may still show other means of communication.
✔ Taxpayers should preserve evidence of communication received (emails, portal alerts, postal receipts) to support procedural compliance in litigation.
✔ Natural Justice remains core: even if methods of service evolve (portal, email), taxpayers must be given a real opportunity to be heard before adverse adjudication.