Violation of natural justice as a ground for writ relief
The most successful ground in GST writ practice, because it is proved by the record rather than argued.
An order passed without the hearing required by Section 75(4), without reasons as required by Section 75(6), on grounds outside the notice contrary to Section 75(7), on material not supplied to the taxpayer, or without the cross examination requested on a statement forming the substratum of the order, is passed in breach of natural justice. A writ lies notwithstanding the appellate remedy, and the usual relief is that the order is set aside and the matter remanded, which resets the pre-deposit and the recovery position.
The five defects
No hearing. No hearing notice, a notice for a date already past, or a notice served after the date. The portal record is the evidence.
No reasons. An order that recites the notice and confirms the demand without dealing with the reply.
Grounds outside the notice. Section 75(7) is a statutory prohibition and its breach is jurisdictional.
Undisclosed material. An order relying on a report, statement or data neither annexed nor described.
Denial of cross examination on a statement that forms the substratum of the order, on Andaman Timber Industries.
Building the record
File the reply on the portal, always, and keep the acknowledgement. An order reciting that no reply was received, where a portal filing exists, decides the petition.
Request the personal hearing in the reply and by separate letter.
Request the relied upon documents and cross examination in writing, separately, and keep the acknowledgements.
Screenshot every hearing notice with its date of receipt.
File written submissions at the hearing and get them acknowledged, so that the absence of any reference to them in the order is demonstrable.
The relief, and its value
The order is set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing. That is not a victory on the merits but it is a substantial commercial gain: the demand ceases to be enforceable, no pre-deposit is required, and the matter is heard afresh with the record you have now built.
In some matters the court also directs that the fresh order be passed within a period, which is useful where the department has been dilatory.
Where the remand is inevitable and the limitation for a fresh order has expired, the point becomes stronger still, and Section 75(3) must be computed.
Where the same defect recurs across years, a single petition covering all years is more efficient and demonstrates a pattern.
Authorities relied on
A writ lies despite an alternative remedy where natural justice has been violated.
Denial of cross examination of witnesses whose statements form the basis of the order vitiates the order.
An opportunity of hearing must be given before an adverse order under Section 75(4), whether or not requested.
What to do on Monday
File every reply on the portal and keep the acknowledgement, whatever else you send.
Request the hearing, the documents and cross examination in writing, separately.
Screenshot every hearing notice with its receipt date.
File written submissions at the hearing and obtain the acknowledgement.
This page states the general position. A reader with a specific question on their own facts may write to the GST practice at AMLEGALS.
Write to the GST practiceQuestions we are asked on this
Is a remand a good outcome?
Commercially, usually yes. The demand ceases to be enforceable and the matter is heard afresh on the record you have now built.
What if we did not ask for a hearing?
Section 75(4) requires an opportunity where any adverse decision is contemplated, whether or not requested.
What is the strongest evidence?
The portal filing acknowledgement of the reply, and the screenshot of the hearing notice with its receipt date.
Can we combine several years?
Yes, and where the same defect recurs it demonstrates a pattern and is more efficient.
Does the department get another chance?
Yes, on remand, subject to the limitation for a fresh order under Section 75(3).
In this cluster
- Writ jurisdiction in GST: when the High Court will hear you
- Alternative remedy and the exceptions the courts have carved
- Challenging a notification, rule or circular as ultra vires
- Jurisdictional error versus error within jurisdiction
- Interim protection: stay, no coercive steps and conditional orders
- Retrospective amendments and Article 14 challenges in GST
- The constitutional challenges to ITC conditions: what has been decided, and what is still open
- Are GST Council recommendations binding? What Mohit Minerals settled, and how to use it
- Recovery during the pendency of proceedings: the limits of Sections 78 and 79
GST Insights is published by AMLEGALS for general information. Law stated as on 3 September 2026. Not advice on any particular set of facts; not an advertisement or a solicitation under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Readers with a question on their own facts may write to the GST practice of their own accord.