Mohan Kumar Agarwala vs. The Drputy Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Raiganj Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority's order dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay could not be entirely faulted, as the specific method of service via the "additional notices and orders" tab was not brought to its attention. However, upon being presented with screenshots by the petitioner, which the respondents did not dispute, the Court found that service through this tab did not constitute proper service, relying on the Division Bench judgment in M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner's delay in preferring the appeal was explained by his lack of knowledge due to improper service, and it could not be attributed to gross negligence or a lackadaisical attitude. The Court condoned the delay, set aside the appellate authority's order dated June 19, 2025, and restored the petitioner's appeal to the file of the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits. The Court also noted that the petitioner had paid the statutory pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, which was made based on the adjudication order after the appeal was dismissed, was ordered to be lifted. The issue regarding the violation of principles of natural justice and Sections 75(4) and 75(6) was left open to be raised before the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohan Kumar Agarwala, challenged an order dated June 19, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an adjudication order dated April 22, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act, solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the proceedings because notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the "additional notices and orders" tab, and he only learned of them after engaging a new accountant. He provided screenshots to support this claim. The petitioner also argued that the adjudication order violated principles of natural justice and Sections 75(4) and 75(6) of the Act. The revenue did not dispute the method of service via the "additional notices and orders" tab.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal under the "additional notices and orders" tab constitutes proper service, thereby justifying the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay? (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory interpretation of service provisions). 2. Whether the adjudication order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and Sections 75(4) and 75(6) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that service via the "additional notices and orders" tab is not proper service, citing the Division Bench judgment in M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. He contended that this lack of proper service explains the delay in filing the appeal and that the adjudication order was passed in violation of natural justice and specific provisions of the Act. Revenue's arguments: The judgment notes that it was not indicated before the appellate authority that notices and orders were served by uploading them on the GST portal under the "additional notices and orders" tab. However, the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's claim that this method of service was used when presented with screenshots before the High Court.