In the matter of M/s Tvl. Vectra Computer Solutions, the petitioner has registered themselves on the file of the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner was filing returns under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and subsequently, under the GST regime also. The petitioner’s registration was canceled on September 6, 2018, on the ground of non-filing of returns. The said defect was subsequently rectified by the petitioner. The petitioner also remitted GST dues to the tune of Rs.66,781/- together with the late fee. The petitioner received notice in which certain defects have been pointed out. The defect includes sales omission and purchase omission also. It was also proposed to levy tax on service charges paid and discount paid. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, no reply was submitted. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed levying tax and penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner highlighted Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which states that 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. Though the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out that the impugned order can as well be challenged under Section 107 of the Act. Therefore according to the respondents, this writ petition is not maintainable.The court observed that though very many grounds have been urged on either side, the order impugned in this writ petition has to be quashed on the simple ground that no personal hearing was granted. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew  attention to Section 75(4) of the CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 which states that 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.The single judge bench said that nowhere in the said notice, the personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner herein. In the impugned order also, it is nowhere mentioned that such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. On this sole ground, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. This writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.