In a significant ruling under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, the Patna High Court has clarified that a second or repeated personal hearing is not mandatory under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act when the tax authority has already provided sufficient opportunities to the taxpayer during adjudication proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that natural justice does not require endless hearings once adequate opportunities have been granted.
The decision came in the case of Rajnish Kumar vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, where the Court emphasized that procedural fairness must be balanced with the need for timely completion of tax proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the GST department initiated proceedings against the assessee by issuing a show cause notice under Sections 74 and 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The notice alleged certain tax irregularities and called upon the taxpayer to submit a response.
The assessee subsequently filed a written reply before the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the department granted multiple opportunities for personal hearing to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
As per the records placed before the Court, the adjudicating authority scheduled personal hearings on three separate occasions:
- 10 July 2025
- 18 July 2025
- 28 July 2025
The authorised representative of the assessee appeared during the proceedings and informed the authority that the written submissions already filed may be treated as the final response in the matter.
Despite participating in the proceedings, the assessee later challenged the final adjudication order before the High Court. The primary contention raised was that the department ought to have granted another personal hearing before passing the adverse order.
Issue Before the Court
The key legal issue before the Court was whether Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates a fresh or second personal hearing before an adverse order can be passed, even when the taxpayer has already been provided adequate opportunities earlier.
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing must be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated against a taxpayer. However, the provision does not specifically prescribe the number of hearings that must be provided.
Findings of the Patna High Court
After examining the facts and records of the case, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee and upheld the action of the GST department.
The Court observed that the requirement of natural justice had already been fulfilled because:
- proper notices were issued by the department,
- multiple dates of hearing were granted,
- and the authorised representative participated in the proceedings.
The Court clarified that Section 75(4) requires a “reasonable opportunity of hearing” and not unlimited or repeated opportunities. Once the taxpayer has been given sufficient chances to present the case, the department is not legally bound to continue granting further hearings merely to prolong the proceedings.
The High Court further noted that insistence on repeated hearings without valid justification would unnecessarily delay adjudication and defeat the objective of efficient tax administration.
Important Observations
The Court made several important observations regarding procedural fairness under GST law:
- Natural justice is meant to ensure fairness and transparency, not to create endless procedural delays.
- Adequate opportunity is the true requirement under Section 75(4), not infinite opportunities.
- Participation by the authorised representative and filing of written submissions indicate that the taxpayer was fully aware of the proceedings.
- Once reasonable compliance with hearing requirements is established, the adjudication order cannot be challenged merely on technical grounds.
The judgment also distinguished situations where no hearing at all was granted. In such cases, courts have often quashed GST orders for violation of natural justice. However, where sufficient opportunities have already been provided, courts are unlikely to interfere.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is highly relevant for both taxpayers and GST authorities across India. It sends a clear message that while taxpayer rights must be protected, procedural safeguards cannot be misused to delay adjudication proceedings indefinitely.
For tax authorities, the judgment provides clarity that repeated hearings are not compulsory once adequate opportunities have already been extended. This may help reduce unnecessary litigation and improve administrative efficiency in GST matters.
For taxpayers, the decision highlights the importance of actively participating in adjudication proceedings and utilizing the opportunities provided by the department at the appropriate stage.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court’s ruling in Rajnish Kumar vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise strengthens the interpretation that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires reasonable opportunity, not endless personal hearings. The judgment strikes a balance between the principles of natural justice and the need for timely disposal of GST disputes.
The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent in future GST litigation involving procedural challenges to adjudication orders, particularly in cases where taxpayers seek repeated hearings despite already being granted adequate opportunities by the department.
Case Details
- Case Name: Rajnish Kumar vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
- Court: Patna High Court
- Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026
- Case Number: CWJC No. 1338 of 2026