Rsh Amit Realty Development And Anr vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, RSH Amit Realty Development LLP & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 28, 2026, passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order stemmed from a notice in form DRC01 dated May 28, 2024, requiring the petitioner to show cause why they should not pay a specified amount along with interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that the notice and subsequent proceedings were illegal due to non-compliance with prescribed procedures. They claimed the notice was merely uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders,' preventing a proper response. The petitioner only became aware of the adjudication order dated August 6, 2024, upon receiving a recovery email on February 18, 2026.

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner had not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply to the same, an opportunity must be granted. The Court quashed and set aside the appeal order dated April 28, 2026, and the adjudication order dated August 6, 2024. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from the date of the order for the financial year 2019-2020. The respondent authority was directed to consider the reply within eight weeks, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and communicate the decision within a week thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer must be afforded a proper opportunity to respond to a show cause notice, and if such an opportunity is denied due to procedural lapses in intimation, the consequent orders are liable to be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 28, 2026, and the adjudication order dated August 6, 2024, are legal and valid, considering the petitioner's claim of not receiving the show cause notice and being unable to file a reply due to procedural deficiencies in intimation, as contemplated under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the proceedings were contrary to law and passed without due compliance with the prescribed procedure under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. They specifically contended that the intimation of the show cause notice was merely uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, which prevented them from responding adequately. They only became aware of the adjudication order through a recovery email. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the State/Revenue.