Personal hearing under GST section 75(4): can an order be passed without one?

Yes: before a GST demand is confirmed against you, the officer must give you a hearing. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act says an opportunity of hearing "shall be granted" where you ask for one in writing or where any adverse decision is contemplated against you, so an order confirming a demand without one is liable to be set aside and sent back, even if you never asked or the reply form shows "No" by mistake. A deliberate, express "No" has not been tested in the rulings read here. At least eight High Courts have set such orders aside (five by Division Benches in those rulings); where the order records hearing notices and you only dispute receiving them, courts have sent you to the appeal.

What do section 75(4) and 75(5) CGST say?

Section 75, "General provisions relating to determination of tax", governs demands under sections 73 and 74, and refers to section 74A as well. Sub-sections (4) and (5) read:

"(4) 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.
(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings."

CGST Act, 2017, section 75(4) and (5) (CBIC text, consolidation as at 1 April 2026)

The State GST Acts carry the same sub-section, and many rulings below arose under them (for example Vishnu Essence, para 6). The statute says "an opportunity of hearing", not "personal hearing". The Allahabad Division Bench in Eveready Industries (31 May 2024) reasoned from the adjournments in sub-section (5) that "word 'personal' can easily be construed to have been intended to be added but has been left out erroneously" (para 44).

CBIC's Circular 258/04/2026-GST (26 October 2026, para 10.1) says officers "may grant maximum four personal hearing opportunities", reading the three-adjournment limit that way. It is guidance for officers, and says they must not cite it in notices or orders (para 17).

Does ticking "No" for a personal hearing, or saying nothing, remove the duty?

A show cause notice's summary (FORM GST DRC-01) has rows for the date, time and venue of the personal hearing (Vishnu Essence, para 9). Your reply goes in FORM GST DRC-06 (rule 142(4)), whose portal screen has an "Option for personal hearing" Yes/No column, as the Madras judgments record (Gabriel India, para 6). The rulings read here treat a "No" that was a portal or tick error, and silence, as no waiver:

• Madras, J-Lin Constructions (13 June 2024): the State said the taxpayer "checked the box for no personal hearing" (para 4). Held: "a personal hearing is mandatory not only when requested for but when an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued." (para 5)
• Madras, Gabriel India (23 November 2023): the downloaded print-out showed "No", the portal screenshot "Yes", and the reply asked for a hearing. "Even if no reply is filed, it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to provide opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing." (para 12)
• Madras, SVB Groups (16 August 2024): the reply opted "Yes" but the print-out showed "No"; the State's counsel said "some time, when we click 'Yes', it will go to 'No'" (para 3). "The petitioner was deprived of the right of personal hearing" (para 5).
• Madras, Pan Horus Garments (31 July 2025): "not opting for personal hearing does not mean that the petitioner is excluded from receiving the opportunities of personal hearing or he waived the rights which is available in terms of provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act." (para 4) One door appears to be left open (the sentence is loosely worded): if, after rejecting the reply, the officer offers a hearing and the taxpayer does not take it up, the State's argument would have "some force".
• Bombay, Kuehne Nagel (Division Bench, 6 December 2023): the reply asked for a hearing but, the court found, ticked "No" inadvertently, so "this was not a case where the petitioner had expressly waived its right of personal hearing" (para 10).

None of these rulings decides whether a deliberate, express "No" would be treated the same; Kuehne Nagel left that open. Do not treat a "No" as safe.

What counts as a hearing?

• A date, time and venue. Where the notice gave none, or said "NA" or "not applicable", Allahabad (Bharat Mint, 4 March 2022, paras 6 to 9) and Bombay's Nagpur Division Bench (Abdul Rehan, 9 January 2026, para 4) set the order aside. Calcutta: with no date, time and venue in the notice, "it cannot be said that an effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner" (Bratin Sikder, 29 October 2025, para 20).
• After your reply. Delhi: the purpose of a personal hearing "is to enable the noticee to address its arguments after the reply is filed" (Jupiter Exports, 24 July 2023, para 29). In Kamalam (Madras, 23 April 2025, para 6) the hearing came "prior to the filing of the reply"; none followed.
• A real hearing. Delhi: "the telephonic conversations for a brief period cannot, in our opinion, be a substitute for a personal hearing or for that matter, be construed as a hearing at all" (Jupiter Exports, para 22). Gujarat followed it (KCC Buildcon, para 9).
• Reply considered anyway: no answer. Delhi called that argument "meritless" (Jupiter Exports, para 28).

What did the courts do with orders passed without a hearing?

DB means Division Bench.

Read in Nira on 4 November 2026. Single judges unless marked DB.

Can I go to the High Court, or must I appeal under section 107?

The Supreme Court has said "The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: ... (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice" (Commercial Steel, 3 September 2021, para 11). Bombay held that breach of section 75(4) "satisfies one of the parameters for exercising discretion of this Court to entertain the petition inspite of there being an alternate remedy" (Kuehne Nagel, para 7).

The limit is a record that shows the breach plainly: Delhi dismissed in 2026 because "the mere invocation" of natural justice "in the pleadings is not by itself sufficient" (Sunil Chauhan, para 16) and the facts were contested.

The appeal under section 107 lies within three months of communication, with one more month for sufficient cause (section 107(1), (4)), after paying the admitted amount and ten per cent of the tax in dispute (section 107(6)); recovery of the balance is then deemed stayed (section 107(7)). For the next tier see our GSTAT guide.

How do I ask for a hearing, and what if I need more time?

Practical steps drawn from the cases, not legal rules:

1. Ask in words, and tick "Yes". Wording the courts accepted as a request: "Noticee wishes to be personally heard if order to the contrary is contemplated" (Principle Mahendra, para 5).
2. Keep proof of what you filed. Save the reply-screen screenshot and the downloaded print-out and compare the hearing option, as the court did in Gabriel India (para 12).
3. If the notice says "NA", write and ask for a date, time and venue.
4. Appear through your authorised representative, or ask for a virtual hearing. The circular (para 10.1(ii), (iii)) says requests for appearance by an authorised representative "should be duly considered" and that "the option of virtual hearing may be provided"; that is guidance to officers, not a right.
5. Ask for an adjournment early, in writing, with the cause, and use the dates you are given. Section 75(5) needs sufficient cause and written reasons, and no more than three adjournments. In A.S. Met Corp a request on the day of the order did not help.

What if the order has already come?

Practical points, not legal rules:

• Read the hearing paragraph of the order. If it records dates, check how the notices were served; section 169(1) lists the modes. If it records none, see the first rows of the table.
• Count the appeal period from communication, and do not assume a writ stops it. Treat a pending writ as not stopping the appeal clock unless the court's order says so; Delhi's did (Sunil Chauhan, para 31). If in doubt, count from the day the order first appeared on the portal. One Calcutta single judge treated an order uploaded only under "Additional Notices and Orders" as not communicated, for a writ's delay (Bratin Sikder, paras 12, 13); do not rely on that for the appeal.
• Expect a remand, not a win: the usual order is a fresh adjudication after a hearing.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• Statute CGST Act section 75 and section 107; CGST Rules rule 142.
• CBIC Circular 258/04/2026-GST, 26 October 2026, paras 9, 10.1 and 17.
• Judgments as named above, read in Nira; Commercial Steel (2021 INSC 441) for the writ point.