M/S. Duttcon Consultant And Engineers Private Limited vs. Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax, Shyambazar Charge, And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable. Citing Sankar Agarwala and Ram Kumar Sinhal, the Court found that notices and orders uploaded under the "additional notices and orders" tab on the GST portal are improper. The adjudication order dated July 15, 2024, was set aside on two grounds: firstly, it was passed in summary form, lacking the relevant facts and basis of decision as mandated by Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, and was bereft of reasons, making it a nullity. Secondly, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, violating Section 75(4) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the respondent to issue a detailed show cause notice within two weeks, allowing the petitioner two weeks to reply, and the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order within two weeks thereafter. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was ordered to be lifted. The Court clarified that the petitioner could not plead limitation unless entitled to do so on June 13, 2024, and that the merits of the case were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Duttcon Consultant and Engineers Private Limited, challenged a summary show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) dated June 13, 2024, and a summary adjudication order (Form GST DRC-07) dated July 15, 2024, issued under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the notices and orders lacked necessary details, were uploaded to the GST portal under an "additional notices and orders" tab, and no opportunity for a hearing was provided. The revenue authorities contended that the writ petition was belatedly filed, as the order was passed on July 15, 2024, and the petition was filed on October 14, 2025. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings until a garnishee notice was issued to their bank.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite being filed belatedly, given the petitioner's alleged unawareness of the impugned notices and order? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the show cause notice and adjudication order, issued in summary form and uploaded on the GST portal under the "additional notices and orders" tab, are valid and comply with statutory requirements? (Question of law, turning on Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). 3. Whether the adjudication order, passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is sustainable? (Question of law, turning on Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The show cause notice and adjudication order were bereft of details, rendering them non-est in law. Uploading them under the "additional notices and orders" tab prevented the petitioner from becoming aware of them. No opportunity of hearing was granted. Reliance was placed on the Calcutta High Court's decisions in Sankar Agarwala vs. The Joint Commissioner of CGSt and Central Excise (Appeal) and Ram Kumar Sinhal vs. State of West Bengal. Revenue's arguments: The writ petition should not be entertained due to its belated filing.