The GST Act mandates for a personal hearing if adverse decision is contemplated


The GST Act mandates for a personal hearing if adverse decision is contemplated


The Calcutta High Court has emphasized in a historic decision the value of providing a personal hearing (PH) during the adjudication phase of tax disputes, particularly in the context of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) procedures. The case of Jayanta Ghosh and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. delves into the procedural nuances and the adherence to the principles of natural justice in the context of GST appeals. This article aims to dissect the judgment, focusing on the criteria for granting a personal hearing, the implications of its denial, and the subsequent directions issued by the court.

The case in question highlights a significant procedural lapse by the authorities involved in the GST adjudication process. Jayanta Ghosh, the petitioner, contested the order, arguing that it violated the principles outlined in Section 107(8) of both the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017. The order was passed without a personal hearing.

The appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay further compounded the issue, without considering the failure to issue a notice of hearing.

The ruling highlights a number of crucial elements:

  • Mandatory Provision for Personal Hearing: The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that the GST Act requires the provision of a personal hearing in situations where an unfavorable outcome is expected, citing earlier decisions as support. The purpose of this clause is to provide a fair assessment and protect the rights of the taxpayer.
  • Violation of Natural Justice: The court noted that it is against the natural justice principles to withhold a personal hearing, particularly in cases when the decision could have unfavorable effects on the taxpayer. These fundamental principles are necessary to guarantee the transparency, fairness, and equity of the process.
  • Condonation of Delay and Appeals on Merits: The court recognized that delays in filing appeals could be condoned if they stem from a violation of procedural rights, such as the right to a personal hearing. This approach underscores the court’s commitment to justice and the rectification of procedural discrepancies.
  • Stay on Recovery Proceedings: The court granted a stay on recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal. This decision reflects the judiciary’s understanding of the economic implications of such disputes on individuals and businesses.

In summary, the ruling rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jayanta Ghosh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. demonstrates the judiciary’s responsibility to protect natural justice principles in the context of tax litigation. Through its emphasis on the need for a personal hearing and the potential for delays caused by procedural infractions, the court has strengthened the legal protections afforded to taxpayers.

This ruling not only sets a precedent for future cases but also sends a clear message about the importance of procedural fairness and the rights of individuals in the face of administrative decisions. As the GST regime continues to evolve, this judgment will undoubtedly serve as a crucial reference point for ensuring that the principles of natural justice are integral to the tax adjudication process.


The copy of the order is as under: