Maya Store And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Maya Store & Anr., challenged an order in original dated December 14, 2023, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. The petitioners contended that the order was passed without providing them an opportunity of hearing, despite its adverse consequences. The Court called for a report from the CGST Authorities, which was filed. The report indicated that no physical notice for personal hearing was issued. While an online hearing was mentioned via ACES-GST Application, the report stated this application was withdrawn from June 2025, leaving no record or proof of any such online notice being served on the petitioners.
Held
The Court held that the order in original dated December 14, 2023, is set aside on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017. The Court found that it was not proven to its satisfaction that the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned decision. The reasoning was based on the respondent's report which confirmed the absence of proof for any notice, physical or online, having been served on the petitioners for a personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an order with adverse consequences cannot be passed without granting a mandatory opportunity of hearing, and the burden to prove such an opportunity was afforded lies with the revenue. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. The petitioners are granted two weeks from the date of the order to file their replies to the show cause notice. The Proper Officer shall then pass appropriate orders after considering the reply and granting an opportunity of hearing if any adverse order is contemplated. The Court explicitly stated it had not gone into the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order in original dated December 14, 2023, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the said Act, by reason of not affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners argued that the order in original was passed without providing them any opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the said Act, especially when the order has adverse consequences. They relied on the fact that the respondent's own report confirmed the lack of proof of any proper notice for hearing. Revenue's arguments: The respondent CGST Authorities, through their report, indicated that an online hearing was scheduled through the ACES-GST Application. However, they could not provide proof of service of this notice due to the application's withdrawal. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
WPA 19924 of 2025
Maya Store &Anr. vs. The Union of India&Ors.
For the Petitioners
: Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray, Adv.
Mr. SubhasisPodder, Adv.
Ms. Shiwani Shaw, Adv.
Mr. GauravChakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Mr.Uday Shankar Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. A. Rajyashree, Adv.
For the Union of India
:Mr. AnindyaSundar Das, Adv.
Hearing Concluded on : 23.02.2026 Judgment on : 23.02.2026 Om Narayan Rai, J.:-
This writ petition assails an order in original dated December 14, 2023 (for the tax period July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018) passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereafter the ‘said Act, of 2017’).
It is the petitioners’ case that the order in original has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner although the order has adverse consequences on the petitioners.
In such view of the matter, a report in the form of affidavit was called for, from the respondent CGST Authorities. Such report has been filed by Mr.Bhattacharjee in court today. The same is taken on record.
The said report reveals that no physical letter calling upon the petitioners for personal hearing was ever given to the petitioners. The report however records that the petitioners were given a date of personal hearing “online through ACES-GST Application available in CITRIX APPSTORE”.
The report further states that from June, 2025 onwards the aforesaid application has been withdrawn and as such there is no record or proof or screenshot of any such online notice having been given to the petitioner.
In such view of the matter, there is nothing before this court to come to the definite conclusion that any notice was indeed served upon the petitioners thereby affording them an opportunity of hearing.
In terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017, if an order having adverse consequence is contemplated, grant of an opportunity of hearing is mandatory.
Since it has not been proved before this Court, to any decree of satisfaction, that the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned decision being taken, therefore the said decision falls foul of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017 which grant statutory recognition to such principles.
On such ground alone, the adjudication order dated December 14, 2023 stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. The petitioner’s shall have two weeks’ time from date to file their reply(ies) to the notice to show cause already issued to the petitioners. The Proper Officer shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law upon taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners, if any.
It is made clear that if the petitioners’ do not file any reply within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the petitioners’ right to file reply to the notice to show cause shall stand closed. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall be granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) if any adverse orders is contemplated against the petitioners.
It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be decided by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall not be entitled to question the adjudication proceedings conducted by the Proper Officer in terms of this order on the ground of limitation unless such ground was available to the petitioner at the time when the notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner.
WPA 19924 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
(Samar)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.