Personal Hearing in GST Cases: Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Clarifies Section 75(5) Does Not Mandate Three Adjournments

The Supreme Court of India has upheld a Delhi High Court ruling reaffirming that Section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) does not mandate the grant of three personal hearings or adjournments.

The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the assessee, holding that no violation of natural justice occurred when the taxpayer was granted one effective opportunity of hearing.

The Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while dismissing SLP, observed that there was no ground to invoke the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

“We are not satisfied that it is a fit case to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench held, while granting liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedies under the GST law.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by M/s MHJ Metaltechs Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 3rd February 2025 issued by the CGST Delhi South Commissionerate. The order had raised demands against the company on the allegation of fraudulent availment of Input TaxCredit (ITC) amounting to ₹7.08 crore as part of a larger fake invoice network exceeding ₹155 crore.

The petitioner alleged that the adjudicating authority violated the principles of natural justice by providing only one personal hearing instead of three, as mentioned in the order. The Delhi High Court, however, rejected this argument and held that Section 75(5) of the CGST Act merely limits the number of adjournments to three but does not impose an obligation on authorities to grant all three.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar appeared for the petitioner, contending that inadequate opportunity was provided to present their case, as only one hearing date was effectively held. It was further argued that the relied-upon documents were illegible, which vitiated the fairness of the proceedings.

However, the Bench concurred with the Delhi High Court’s reasoning that the principles of natural justice were duly observed. The High Court had found that the petitioner had attended one personal hearing on 3rd January 2025 and had failed to raise substantive arguments on the core issue as to whether the goods were actually supplied and ITC was legitimately claimed.

While upholding the Delhi High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court implicitly affirmed that Section 75(5) of the Central GST Act serves as a ceiling on the number of adjournments, not a minimum guarantee. The legislative intent, the Court noted, is to prevent delays and ensure expeditious adjudication, not to compel tax authorities to grant three separate hearings.

The Delhi High Court had earlier clarified: “A mere plea by the Petitioners that the opportunity for three hearings were not given cannot be accepted by the Court when admittedly one of the hearings was in fact attended by the Petitioners.” The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP effectively endorses this interpretation.

While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court granted liberty to M/s MHJ Metaltechs Pvt. Ltd. to pursue an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and extended the time period to file such an appeal until 15th October 2025. The Court found no procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice that would warrant interference under its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates