GST Personal Hearings: Procedure, Perception, and the Gap in Natural Justice

Introduction: Personal Hearing vs. Real Hearing

Under the GST regime, the concept of a Personal Hearing (PH) is projected as the cornerstone of adjudication, grounded in the foundational rule of natural justice – Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side). On paper, this is the stage where the assessee’s written reply is supposed to be supplemented, clarified and reinforced through oral submissions before the Proper Officer.

In practical GST adjudication, however, what plays out is often disconnected from this ideal. The statutory promise of a “real hearing” frequently dissolves into a mere ritual of attendance, with minimal engagement on facts or law.

This article critically examines:

  • How Personal Hearings are typically conducted in GST proceedings
  • Why Section 75(4) of the CGST Act raises serious concerns when hearings become mechanical
  • How the current practice affects appeals and limitation
  • What systemic changes could restore substance to GST hearings

The One-Sided “Dialogue” in GST Personal Hearings

The Expected Role of a Personal Hearing

In a properly conducted Personal Hearing, the following should ideally occur:

  • The Proper Officer examines and questions the assessee’s position
  • Doubts on the facts and legal propositions are put to the assessee
  • The assessee (or counsel) responds, clarifies, and explains
  • The final order reflects consideration of both written and oral submissions

The process should resemble a genuine exchange where the assessee’s case is tested, not just received.

What Actually Happens in Many Proceedings

In reality, GST practitioners and assessees often witness a very different pattern:

  • Physical submissions are dutifully accepted and “taken on record”
  • Oral submissions are listened to but rarely debated
  • The Proper Officer seldom poses pointed questions regarding:
    • Interpretation of statutory provisions
    • Application of exemptions, notifications, or circulars
    • Specific business practices or transaction structures

The result is:

The assessee speaks, the officer listens politely, and the hearing concludes – more like a monologue than adjudication.

In effect, the proceeding resembles an extended filing of submissions rather than a hearing in the true judicial sense.

Predetermined Outcomes and the “Foregone Conclusion” Phenomenon

Orders First, Hearings Later – In Substance

A recurring perception among GST litigating professionals is that the final view of the Adjudicating Authority is often formed before the Personal Hearing. The sequence, in practice, appears inverted:

  1. Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued with a particular departmental stance
  2. Detailed written reply filed by the assessee, sometimes running into dozens of pages
  3. Personal Hearing granted as a statutory formality
  4. Final order ultimately reaffirms the SCN allegations with minimal discussion of the defence

It is not uncommon to find:

  • Lengthy written submissions apparently not addressed point-wise
  • Crucial arguments on law, precedents, and facts brushed aside or ignored
  • Cut-paste reasoning from the SCN appearing in the order

This creates a strong impression that:

The decision is made first, and the hearing is fitted around that decision later.

Impact on the Principle of Natural Justice

When the outcome seems predetermined, the assessee’s participation reduces to a token gesture.