Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a works contract service provider based in a remote village and dependent on a part-time accountant, was unaware of the login credentials to the GST portal and of the show cause notice issued prior to the impugned Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner challenged the order for lack of an opportunity of hearing and for allegedly lacking a DIN and signature.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned assessment order was invalid for want of signature/DIN of the concerned officer.
  2. Whether the assessing authority was obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act before passing an adverse order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Being unaware of login credentials and unfamiliar with the online system, the petitioner had no knowledge of the show cause notice preceding the impugned order.
  • Respondent No. 4 failed to afford an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.
  • The Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 was not signed by the concerned officer and lacked a DIN, rendering it liable to be set aside per this Court's decisions.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Though an electronically generated DIN was not mentioned in the impugned order, a Unique Identification Number was assigned, so the contention regarding absence of DIN was not tenable.
  • The Assessment Order was passed as far back as 2024, and no explanation was offered for the delay in filing the writ petition; the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal, which was not availed.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the Assessment Order dated 26.04.2024 did bear the signature of the concerned officer, so that specific contention regarding signature failed.
  • However, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding Section 75(4), which mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax; the impugned order contained no reference to issuance of any notice of hearing consistent with this second limb of Section 75(4).
  • The order under challenge was accordingly held invalid and unsustainable and set aside, with the Assessing Officer at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and proceed with assessment in accordance with law.
  • Considering the delay in approaching the Court since the 2024 order, the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within six weeks.

Important Clarification

  • Section 75(4) of the CGST Act imposes an independent obligation on the assessing authority to grant a hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated against the taxpayer, regardless of whether the taxpayer made a specific written request for a hearing — failure to reference issuance of any hearing notice in the order itself is fatal to the order's validity.
  • Even where relief is granted on this procedural ground, courts may condition it on a partial pre-deposit where there has been a significant, unexplained delay in approaching the Court after the order was passed.

Sections Involved

  • Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, the central provision applied to set aside the order.
  • Form GST DRC-07 – summary order impugned in the writ petition.

Decision – In Favour of

The petition is allowed in favour of the Assessee. The impugned order is set aside for denial of the Section 75(4) hearing, with fresh proceedings to follow subject to a 25% pre-deposit.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 18186 of 2026
  • CNR: APHC010340272026
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
  • Date of Order: 08.07.2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.