Violation of GST S. 75(4), Reply Filed not Considered: Calcutta HC sets aside Order [Read Order]
The Court directed the officer to grant the petitioner or his representative an effective opportunity of personal hearing and to consider the reply already filed before deciding the matter afresh.
![Violation of GST S. 75(4), Reply Filed not Considered: Calcutta HC sets aside Order [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/29/2070249-gst-violation-taxscan.webp "Violation of GST S. 75(4), Reply Filed not Considered: Calcutta HC sets aside Order [Read Order]")
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a GST order passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act 2017 for the tax period covering 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner Prosanta Kumar Saha challenging the said order primarily on the ground that the mandatory provision under Section 75(4) of the Act,...
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a GST order passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act 2017 for the tax period covering 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner Prosanta Kumar Saha challenging the said order primarily on the ground that the mandatory provision under Section 75(4) of the Act, which requires an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order, was not complied with.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the State, upon instructions, conceded that the petitioner indeed was not afforded a personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4).
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
The Court further noted that the records revealed that the petitioner had filed a response which was not even considered by the proper officer while passing the impugned order. Taking note of these procedural lapses, the High Court held that the order could not be sustained in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the proper officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Court directed the officer to grant the petitioner or his representative an effective opportunity of personal hearing and to consider the reply already filed before deciding the matter afresh.
The writ petition was thus disposed of, and all connected applications rendered infructuous were also dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
