Sebabrata Medicine Hall And Anr. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah And Kadamtala Charge And Ors

Held

The Court held that the adjudication orders passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, could not be sustained. The primary reason for setting aside the orders was the failure of the adjudicating authority to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the said Act. The Court noted that the show cause notices did not provide the date, time, and venue for the personal hearing. Consequently, the adjudication orders were set aside. The Court also quashed the order of attachment passed in Form GST DRC – 13 dated 20th February 2026. The petitioner was granted liberty to respond to the show cause notices within 10 working days. The proper officer was directed to hear and dispose of the proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All other points raised by the petitioner were expressly left open to be decided by the adjudicating officer. The Court did not make a finding on the issue of the portal upload tab or limitation.

Facts

The petitioner, Sebabrata Medicine Hall, challenged notices and adjudication orders issued under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for tax periods July 2017 to March 2018 and April 2018 to March 2019. The challenges were based on the argument that the notices and orders were uploaded under the "view additional notices and order" tab instead of "view notices and orders," and crucially, that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the adjudication orders were passed. The petitioner also raised the issue of limitation. The State was represented. An order of attachment passed in Form GST DRC – 13 dated 20th February 2026 was also challenged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication orders passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, are sustainable in light of the petitioner not being afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the said Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the notices and orders were uploaded on the common portal in the correct tab, impacting their validity? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the proceedings for the two tax periods are barred by limitation? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the adjudication orders were invalid because they were passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the Act. They also argued that the notices and orders were uploaded on the portal under an incorrect tab. The petitioner further raised the issue of limitation. The petitioner sought to combine the challenges for both tax periods due to common grounds. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State regarding the petitioner's contentions on the portal upload tab, personal hearing, or limitation.