80% GST Amount Recovered Despite Passing Ex-Parte Order: Madras HC Sets Aside Order [Read Order]
The court observed that passing an adverse order without providing an effective opportunity of personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory safeguard under Section 75(4) of the Act.
![80% GST Amount Recovered Despite Passing Ex-Parte Order: Madras HC Sets Aside Order [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/25/2068996-exparte-order-taxscan-1.webp "80% GST Amount Recovered Despite Passing Ex-Parte Order: Madras HC Sets Aside Order [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST order passed under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, citing a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a taxpayer must be given an opportunity of personal hearing before finalising an adverse assessment. The petitioner, M/s. G.P. Engineers had challenged the order dated...
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST order passed under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, citing a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a taxpayer must be given an opportunity of personal hearing before finalising an adverse assessment.
The petitioner, M/s. G.P. Engineers had challenged the order dated 24th February 2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Nandanam Assessment Circle, on the ground that no proper notice or opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order.
Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here
It was contended that while the department claimed that the notice was sent through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), the petitioner did not receive any effective notice or opportunity to present its case.
Interestingly, it was brought to the Court’s attention that despite the assessment being ex parte, the tax department had already recovered nearly 80% of the disputed tax demand, amounting to Rs. 8,03,025 out of the total liability of about Rs. 9,52,141, even while the writ petition was pending adjudication.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, considering the submissions of both sides, observed that passing an adverse order without providing an effective opportunity of personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory safeguard under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here
The Court held that the impugned order, having been passed without hearing the petitioner and without considering its reply, could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. It directed the petitioner to submit its detailed reply along with supporting documents within three weeks and instructed the tax officer to issue a fresh notice with a clear 14-day period for granting a personal hearing before passing any fresh order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
