Satyajit Ghosal vs. The State Of West Bengal And Or

Held

The Court held that the order impugned, dated July 31, 2025, could not be sustained because the Appellate Authority had failed to consider the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of 'Ram Kumar Sinhal vs. State of West Bengal' reported at (2025) 177 taxmann.com 48 (Calcutta). The Division Bench had observed that GST Authorities must clearly indicate on the portal which category of notices fall under the "Additional Tab" or ensure all notices are uploaded under a single "View Notices and/or Orders" tab. The Division Bench had also noted that in the absence of proper communication, the uploading of notices was vitiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is directed to revisit the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, decide it in accordance with law, and consider the principles laid down in the 'Ram Kumar Sinhal' judgment. If the delay is condoned, the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Satyajit Ghosal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 31, 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an adjudication order dated August 6, 2024, solely on the grounds of delay. The appeal was delayed by over four months. The petitioner contended that notices were uploaded to the "View Additional Notices" tab on the GST portal, and they were unaware of these proceedings as they did not receive any intimation on their registered email ID, leading to an ex-parte order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, relying on a Coordinate Bench judgment. The petitioner then brought to the court's attention a Division Bench judgment in 'Ram Kumar Sinhal –Vs.- State of West Bengal' which set aside a similar single-judge decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, without properly considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay, which was occasioned by notices being uploaded to the "View Additional Notices" tab on the GST portal, thereby violating the principle of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices were not properly communicated as they were uploaded to an "Additional Notices" tab, and they did not receive any intimation on their registered email. This lack of proper communication led to an ex-parte order, violating natural justice. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in 'M/s. East Coast Constructions and Industries Limited –Vs.- Assistant Commissioner (ST)' and subsequently, the Division Bench judgment in 'Ram Kumar Sinhal –Vs.- State of West Bengal' which highlighted issues with the accessibility of notices from the GST portal. Revenue/State's arguments: The State submitted, on instruction, that there was material to show the petitioner was otherwise aware of the notices and orders.