GST order quashed for not considering reply filed & not providing personal hearing

GST order quashed for not considering the reply filed and not providing an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.

In a recent judgment, Karnataka High Court quashed and set aside GST order passed without considering the reply filed and not providing an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order. 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4513 (2025) (04) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (GST Official) without considering the reply of the Petitioner.

The petitioner was a Private Limited Company. It had filed Form GSTR-3B. The GST Officials issued Form ASMT-10 notice, calling for explanation as to the difference/discrepancy between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-1 submitted by the petitioner. 

A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed its written reply and consequently, the GST Official without granting an opportunity of personal hearing proceeded to pass the impugned order stating that the petitioner failed to reply to the show-cause notice.

The petitioner submitted that it had filed its reply to the show-cause notice issued but the officials failed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner and proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting an opportunity of personal hearing and hence the impugned ex-parte order deserved to be quashed and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration of the matter afresh.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the impugned order indicated that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed its reply to the show cause notice and the GST official failed to consider the said reply. The impugned ex-parte order had been passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that in view of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes not considering the reply filed by the petitioner and not providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner a justice oriented approach would be to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.  

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO can’t take two different stands on immunity u/s 270AA(2) for a same transaction
• ITAT held 2000 gram jewellery reasonable in view of customary practices & CBDT Instruction
• Documents obtained post search & information obtained from public domain not incriminating material
• No second reopening for unexplained credits in bank due to bank’s name change
• FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms