Short SCN Response Time Leads to Quashing of GST Demand Order Under Section 75(4)



Quick Summary
A recent ruling has quashed a GST demand order due to the issuing of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) with an unreasonably short response time. The taxpayer was not granted an opportunity for a hearing, which is a violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act 2017 and the fundamental principles of natural justice. While the order was set aside, the authorities may still initiate fresh proceedings.

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 not been granted where an adverse decision is contemplated against the taxpayer. Section 75(4) states as follows -

(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.

GST Demand Order Quashed: Short SCN Response Time

Section 75(4) is on the basis of the principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem', which being one of the basic principles of natural justice, as enshrined in Article 14 of The Constitution of India and shall come to rescue in such cases. On the same basis it was held in the case of DIGANTA KUMAR DEKA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM [2025-VIL-1089-GAU]. The failure to provide a hearing, even when no reply is filed by the assessee, violates the second limb of Section 75(4) which requires a hearing to be granted when an adverse decision is contemplated. This renders the order passed without a hearing as violative of both the statutory mandate and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

 

However, to reduce litigation it is to be understood that not replying to SCN may not be a very good ploy as the entire procedure is not quashed, but only is adjudicated de-novo. In the same judgement it was held that the respondents were granted liberty to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, if considered appropriate, with the period between the issuance of the Summary of Show Cause Notice and the date of the judgment being excluded from the computation of the limitation period under Section 73(10). Section 73(9) & (10) provides as follows -

 

"(9) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to ten per cent. of tax or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher, due from such person and issue an order.

(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund."

FAQ :

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.


713 Views Comment   Share GST   Report


About the Author

DESIGNATED PARTNER

Mr. Vivek Jalan is a FCA, Qualified LL.M (Constitutional Law) and LL.B. He is the Chairman of The Fiscal Affairs and Taxation Committee of The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He is the Convenor on Indirect Taxes of the CII- Economic Affairs and Taxation Committee (ER); He is also a visiting faculty for Indirec ... Read more

Comments :

Related Articles


Loading


Popular Articles





CCI Pro

CCI Articles

submit article