Shashi Kant Jaiswal And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Shyambazar-Manicktola-Beadon Street Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Shashi Kant Jaiswal & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021, dated February 4, 2025. They also challenged the attachment of their bank account, effected on June 11, 2025, under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act. The petitioners contended they had no knowledge of the show cause notice as it was uploaded under the "view additional notices and orders" section of the portal, not the usual "view notices and orders" section. Consequently, they were unaware of the demand order and the subsequent debit of Rs. 75,354/- from their electronic credit ledger. The bank account attachment occurred before they could react.
Held
The Court held that while Section 169 of the Act deems uploading a notice on the portal as valid service, the mode and manner of upload must adhere to general practice. Uploading a notice in the "additional notice tab" is considered unusual. The Court acknowledged that the petitioners may not have noticed the proceedings and failed to contest them due to the notice being uploaded in an unusual section, leading to an order passed without due notice. Given that Rs. 75,354/- had already been deducted from the petitioners' credit ledger, the Court deemed it prudent to permit the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated February 4, 2025, without delving into the dispute of proper service. The consequential attachment order of the bank account was quashed. The petitioners were directed to file an appeal within four weeks, and the appellate authority was instructed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits without insisting on further pre-deposit, retaining the deducted sum to the credit of the proceedings. The order was conditional on the petitioners filing an appeal within the stipulated time.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice and consequential order under the "view additional notices and orders" section of the GST portal, as opposed to the "view notices and orders" section, constitutes valid service of notice under Section 169 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, especially when the petitioner claims no knowledge of the proceedings. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that the notice was not served in the ordinary course of practice, leading to their lack of awareness of the show cause notice, the demand order, and the subsequent debit from their credit ledger. They contended that the unusual placement of the notice prevented them from responding or filing an appeal in time. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, it implicitly acknowledges the revenue's position by referencing Section 169 of the Act regarding deemed valid service through portal upload.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 79(1)(c), Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
4 07.08.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Shashi Kant Jaiswal & Anr. Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shyambazar- Manicktola-Beadon Street Charge & Ors.
Mr. Abhijat Das
Ms. Aratrika Roy
Mr. Anirban Chatterjee
… For the petitioners
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
Mr. Debraj Sahu
… For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed not only challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), in respect of the tax period April, 2020 to March, 2021 dated 4th February, 2025, but also the attachment of the petitioners’ bank account maintained with the Central Bank of India effected vide notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the said Act on 11th June, 2025 in Form GST DRC 13. 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties it would transpire that the petitioners would contend that the petitioners had no knowledge or notice with regard to the show cause since all proceedings, inter alia, including the show cause notice was uploaded under the head “view additional notices and orders”, though ordinarily the same ought to have been uploaded under the head “view notices and orders”. It is for such reason the petitioners being unaware of the show cause notice could not respond to the show cause. The petitioners were also not aware of the consequential demand made under Section 73 of the said Act by an order dated 4th February, 2025 in Form DRC 07. It is only when the petitioners’ electronic credit ledger was debited against the aforesaid demand to the extent of Rs.75,354/-, that the petitioners upon enquiry had come to learn with regard to the above. Even before the petitioners could react, the notice under Section 79(1) of the said Act was issued attaching the petitioners’ bank account. Following the above the writ petition appears to have been filed.
On the basis of materials on record, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners may not have noticed the proceedings and may not have contested the same by reasons of the notice of the proceeding being uploaded on the “view additional notices and orders” section of the portal, which resulted in the above order being passed without due notice of the petitioner, cannot be ruled out. It is true that as per Section 169 of the said Act, uploading a notice on the portal is deemed to be valid service, but in my view the mode and manner of upload must be as per the general practice. Usually all notices and orders are uploaded under the “view notices and orders”. It is unusual to upload the notice in the additional notice tab. If the petitioners had no notice, the petitioners could not have also been aware of the show cause. The petitioners could not also possibly been aware of the determination made, for the petitioners to file an appeal in time.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that already a sum of Rs.75,354/-has been deducted from the petitioners’ credit ledger, I am of the view that it shall be prudent at this stage to permit the petitioners to prefer an appeal from the aforesaid order dated 4th February, 2025, without going into the disputed arena as to whether there was proper service of the notice and order, on the petitioners.
As such, if any such appeal is filed by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from date, the appellate authority without insisting for further pre- deposit from the petitioners shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits and shall accept the documents, if any, and the defense put forward by the petitioners. It is made clear that the sum of Rs.75,354/- shall be retained to the credit of the proceedings.
The consequential attachment order issued by the respondents effected vide notice dated 11th June, 2025 in From GST DRC 13, in the facts as noted above, can no longer be sustained, the same is accordingly quashed.
It is, however, made clear that the aforesaid order has been passed on the premise that the petitioners would prefer an appeal. If no appeal is filed within four weeks as directed above, the petitioners shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order and the respondents shall be at liberty to enforce the original demand in accordance with law.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
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.