HC Rejects Natural Justice Plea After GST Hearing Waiver

Case Details: Innovate Designers & Builders (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant State Tax Officer - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 670 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Devan Ramachandran & Basant Balaji, JJ.
• Smt. Parvathy Menon, Smt. K. Krishna, Achyuth Menon, V. Harisankar & Smt. Anna Anto, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Smt. Thushara James, SR GP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was issued a demand notice under GST proceedings and was granted time to submit its objections. It sought time and filed objections. In its reply in Form DRC-06, it expressly indicated that a personal hearing was not required. The adjudicating authority thereafter proceeded to pass an assessment order without granting personal hearing. The appellant challenged the said order before the Single Judge, contending a breach of the principles of natural justice and also raising issues relating to the alleged postal submission and portal-related difficulties. The Single Judge relegated the appellant to an alternate statutory remedy, against which the present writ appeal was filed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that when the appellant had expressly waived the right to a personal hearing under Section 75 of the CGST Act and Kerala GST Act, the contention that the adjudication order was vitiated for want of hearing could not be sustained. It was further held that the requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4), stood satisfied where the taxpayer had voluntarily waived such right in its reply, and therefore no procedural illegality arose in passing the order without a personal hearing. The Court observed that alleged postal dispatch or portal difficulties could not override or dilute the effect of an explicit waiver recorded by the appellant during proceedings. It was concluded that the invocation of writ jurisdiction to bypass the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, was not maintainable in such circumstances. Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy.