Personal hearing under Section 75(4): the right, and the consequence of denying it
The most successful single ground in GST writ litigation is also the simplest. No hearing, no order.
Section 75(4) requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable, or where any adverse decision is contemplated. An adverse order passed without a hearing is passed in breach of a statutory mandate, and High Courts have set aside such orders and remanded the matter, without requiring the taxpayer to exhaust the appellate remedy.
When the right arises
On a written request, always. Include the request in the reply and in a separate letter, so it is unambiguous.
Where an adverse decision is contemplated, even without a request. This is the limb departments overlook. An officer who intends to confirm a demand must offer a hearing whether or not one was asked for.
Section 75(5) permits up to three adjournments for sufficient cause, recorded in writing. That is a limit on adjournments, not a limit on the right to be heard.
What counts as a hearing
A real opportunity, on a stated date, with notice of it. A hearing notice issued for a date already past, or served after the date, is no notice, and this recurs frequently on portal generated notices.
Multiple hearing dates in a single notice, with no indication of which will be taken up, have been held to be inadequate.
A hearing at which new material is put to the taxpayer, without time to respond, is a hearing in form only.
Where a video hearing is offered, the link, the date and the record matter; an order reciting that the taxpayer did not appear, where no link was received, should be challenged with the email record.
The remedy, and why the writ is available
A breach of Section 75(4) is a breach of a statutory requirement and of natural justice. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation recognised that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar a writ where there is a violation of natural justice.
The relief is usually the setting aside of the order and a remand for a fresh hearing, which resets the pre deposit and recovery position entirely. That is a substantial commercial gain.
The evidence is what wins it: the reply on record requesting a hearing, the absence of a hearing notice, or the hearing notice with an impossible date. Preserve the portal screenshots.
Authorities relied on
The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition where there is a breach of natural justice or a want of jurisdiction.
An opportunity of hearing must be given before an adverse order under Section 75(4), irrespective of whether a request was made.
What to do on Monday
Request a personal hearing in the reply and again by separate letter, so the request is unambiguous.
Screenshot every hearing notice with its date of receipt; this is the evidence the writ turns on.
File written submissions at the hearing and get the acknowledgement.
On receipt of the order, check whether it deals with each submission, and consider Section 161 rectification alongside the appeal.
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
We were given a hearing but the order does not deal with our submissions. Is that enough?
No. Section 75(6) requires the order to state the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. An order that records attendance but ignores submissions is challengeable.
The hearing notice arrived after the hearing date. What do we do?
Write immediately with the screenshot, ask for a fresh date, and preserve the record. That single document usually decides the writ.
Can we ask for a video hearing?
Yes, and ask in writing. Keep the link and the joining record.
How many adjournments are available?
Up to three under Section 75(5), for sufficient cause recorded in writing. Do not exhaust them without reason.
Is a writ better than an appeal here?
Where the breach is clear, the writ is usually faster and avoids the pre deposit. Where the breach is arguable, the appeal is safer.
In this cluster
- GST show cause notice: how to read it, and how to answer it
- Section 73 versus Section 74: where the department overreaches, and how to prove it
- Section 74A: the unified limitation regime from FY 2024-25
- DRC-01A pre notice intimation: reply, pay, or wait?
- From DRC-01 to DRC-07: the adjudication chain in one page
- Vague and omnibus notices: how Amrit Foods, Brindavan Beverages and Oryx Fisheries decide GST demands
- Suppression of facts under Section 74: what the department must actually prove
- Orders that travel beyond the notice: Section 75(7) in practice
- Limitation for GST demands: the year by year table you should keep in every file
- Section 168A extensions: the challenge to extended limitation, and where the litigation stands
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.