Quick Summary
Consider a case - A SCN in DRC 01 was issued and the taxpayer was asked to submit reply in one week. Taxpayer does not respond. Order is issued in DRC-07 confirming the demand. Hence, a short time was provided to reply to SCN and as mandated u/s 75(4) of CGST Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing has
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Articles
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Broadcasts
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited Articles Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
Buy CCI PRO Now
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.
Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the person chargeable with tax or penalty if a written request is received or if an adverse decision is contemplated against them.
The GST demand order was quashed because the taxpayer was given a very short time to respond to the Show Cause Notice and was not provided with an opportunity for a hearing, violating Section 75(4).
Section 75(4) upholds the principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem', which means 'hear the other side', a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Not necessarily. While the order may be quashed due to procedural violations like a short response time, the authorities can often initiate de novo proceedings.
Yes, in this case, the authorities were granted liberty to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, excluding the period from SCN issuance to the judgment date from the limitation period.
CAclubindia
