Three is a ceiling, not three unconditional extensions
Section 75(5) of the CGST Act requires the proper officer, where sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, to grant time and adjourn the hearing with reasons recorded in writing. Its proviso prohibits more than three such adjournments to a person during the proceedings. A request therefore needs its factual cause and a traceable decision; the numerical headroom alone is not proof that sufficient cause has been shown.
Read the applicable text: CBIC CGST Act: sections 75(4) and 75(5).
Keep hearing rights separate from adjournment counts
Section 75(4) addresses an opportunity of hearing where requested in writing or an adverse decision is contemplated. An adjournment request is not a substitute for responding to the merits or recording the hearing request. Preserve both communications where relevant and do not represent three unused adjournments as a licence to ignore a listed hearing.
Count decisions rather than email traffic
Maintain the proceeding reference, hearing date, request, supporting reason, decision and next listing. Two messages repeating the same request do not necessarily equal two grants. A refused request is not a granted adjournment. Obtain the actual record before classifying an unclear rescheduling event; do not label every administrative date change as a taxpayer adjournment without evidence.
Use the statutory person-and-proceeding scope
The cap is expressed for a person during the proceedings. Do not pool unrelated taxpayers or mechanically reset the count each financial year within the same proceeding. Equally, do not aggregate distinct proceedings into one lifetime allowance. Resolve combined notices or ambiguous proceeding references from their actual procedural record.
Show sufficient cause specifically
Identify the obstacle, why it affects the listed hearing and the supported time required. Attach relevant evidence, preserve submission and receipt, and make a realistic request. The section does not prescribe one universal number of days for an adjournment or guarantee the requested replacement date. Continue independently possible preparation and comply with the actual directions.
Review the record before asserting a breach
A disputed count, refused request or missing reason requires examination of the actual communications and available remedy. This article does not promise that a fourth request must be granted, that an officer’s date change necessarily consumes a grant, or that every procedural dispute automatically invalidates the eventual order.
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts are fictional. Calculations illustrate the stated assumptions, not a predetermined legal outcome.
Illustrative example 1: First supported grant
No prior qualifying adjournments are recorded and one request is granted with written reasons. The count becomes one, leaving two below the statutory maximum of three. That headroom does not dispense with sufficient cause for a later request.
Illustrative example 2: Repeated communications for one request
A person sends an original request and two reminders about the same hearing. The officer grants one adjournment. Three communications correspond to one grant, not three, on the assumed record.
Illustrative example 3: A refusal is not a grant
Two prior adjournments were granted. A third request is refused. The register still shows two grants, with one numerical place below the ceiling. The refusal and cause require their own review; the person cannot assume that the hearing has moved.
Illustrative example 4: The ceiling has been reached
Three qualifying adjournments have already been granted in the same proceeding. A proposed further grant would be number four, one above the statutory maximum. A fresh request should not be described as an automatically available fourth extension.
Illustrative example 5: Separate taxpayers
Company A has two grants in its proceeding and Company B has one in its separate proceeding. Their registers show two and one respectively, rather than treating A’s next request as grant four merely because the adviser handles both companies.
Illustrative example 6: Reconcile mixed events
A diary lists six changed or requested hearing events: three evidenced qualifying grants, one refusal and two administrative relistings whose classification must be established. The proved grant count is three. Neither a six-grant assertion nor an assumption that all date changes are irrelevant follows from that incomplete diary alone.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify the proceeding | Notice and case reference. |
| 2 | Identify the person | Legal entity and taxpayer record. |
| 3 | Record each hearing date | Listing and service evidence. |
| 4 | Separate hearing requests | Section 75(4) correspondence. |
| 5 | Explain sufficient cause | Obstacle-specific evidence. |
| 6 | Submit a clear time request | Receipt and proposed preparation plan. |
| 7 | Obtain the actual decision | Grant, refusal and written reasons. |
| 8 | Classify the event | Repeated request versus qualifying grant. |
| 9 | Reconcile the running count | Person-and-proceeding grant register. |
| 10 | Prepare for the operative date | Submissions, attendance and follow-up. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Which subsection governs these adjournments?
Section 75(5).
2. Is three an unconditional entitlement?
No. The sufficient-cause requirement remains.
3. What is the maximum stated in the proviso?
No more than three such adjournments to a person during the proceedings.
4. Must reasons for adjournment be recorded?
The provision requires reasons in writing.
5. Does a request itself move the hearing?
Verify the actual decision and operative date.
6. Do reminders automatically count as separate grants?
No. Reconcile the decision they concern.
7. Does a refused request consume a granted adjournment?
It is not itself a grant.
8. Does an administrative relisting always count?
Establish its actual nature from the record.
9. Can unrelated companies’ counts be pooled?
Maintain the statutory person-and-proceeding analysis.
10. Does a new financial year automatically reset an ongoing case count?
Do not infer such a reset from this provision.
11. Is a hearing opportunity the same as an adjournment?
They are distinct procedural questions.
12. Should a hearing request be written?
Section 75(4) expressly addresses a written request, among its triggers.
13. Is there one universal extension length?
This subsection does not prescribe one.
14. Can the fourth grant be assumed available?
The proviso prohibits more than three such grants.
15. Does a count dispute automatically cancel a demand?
Do not promise that outcome; examine the actual record and remedy.
16. What is the main closing control?
A documented decision and running count linked to the operative hearing date.