Sitangshu Sekhar Masanta vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sitangshu Sekhar Masanta, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 11, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that notices were uploaded to the "additional notices" tab of the portal instead of the usual "view notices and orders" tab, and that the personal hearing was scheduled before the deadline for filing a response. The State argued that the writ petition was filed with significant delay (June 11, 2024, for an order dated December 11, 2023) and that no explanation for the delay was provided. The State also noted that the order was uploaded to the portal.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the violation of natural justice, specifically concerning the placement of notices on the portal and the timing of the personal hearing. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed on December 11, 2023, and was uploaded to the portal, albeit under the "additional notices" tab. Without delving into the controversy of whether this constituted adequate service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, the Court observed that an alternate remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Considering the peculiar facts, the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within 30 days, along with an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits within 8 weeks of its filing, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders under the "additional notices" drop-down menu of the GST portal constitutes adequate service under Section 169(1)(d) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, thereby vitiating the proceedings and the order passed thereunder due to a violation of the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices were not properly served as they were uploaded under an unusual tab on the portal. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the personal hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2023, while the deadline to file a response was October 12, 2023. This premature scheduling of the hearing rendered the opportunity meaningless and vitiated the proceedings and the subsequent order. The petitioner relied on the principle of natural justice. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the writ petition was filed with an unexplained delay of approximately six months from the date of the impugned order. The State also submitted that the order was uploaded to the portal, and no case for interference by the High Court had been made out.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 169(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Item No. ML 64 Saswata
W.P.A. 15382 of 2024 Sitangshu Sekhar Masanta versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Mr. Subhasis Podder Ms. Shiwani Shaw Mr. Piyas Chowdhury Mr. Amit Saha …For the petitioner Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Md. T.M.Siddiqui Mr. T. Chakraborty Mr. S.Sanyal …For the State Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee …For the respondent nos. 4 and 5
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
Challenging the order dated 11th December 2023 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no notice of the proceeding, as all notices were uploaded in the drop down menu of the dashboard under the tab “additional notices” of the portal, though ordinarily the same are required to be uploaded under the menu “view notices and orders”. By drawing attention of this Court to the show cause issued in Form GST DRC 01 dated 10th September 2023, it is submitted that although, the petitioner was granted opportunity to file his response on or before 12th October 2023, the date for personal hearing was fixed on 21st September 2023. It is submitted that the respondents ought to have granted the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing only after the time to file reply had expired. In absence of the aforesaid, the opportunity of personal hearing becomes meaningless and the 2 proceedings, inter alia, including the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act stands vitiated on such ground.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate appearing for the respondents would, however, submit that the order impugned had been passed on 11th December, 2023 and the present writ petition has been filed only on 11th June 2024. Further, there is no explanation for the delay. He submits that no case for interference by this Court, has been made out.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, although the petitioner complains of violation of principles of natural justice, I find that the order had been passed on 11th December 2023. The order appears to have been uploaded in the portal, though under the “additional notices” drop down menu. Although, the petitioner claims that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge with regard to the aforesaid order and the petitioner had only been able to ascertain the same in the last week of May 2024 when the respondent no. 3 had brought the factum of passing of the aforesaid order to the notice of the petitioner by a telephonic call, I am of the view since, the notice/order had admittedly been uploaded on the portal, without going into the controversy at this stage, whether uploading of notice/order under the “additional notices” drop down menu constitute adequate service in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the said Act, by reasons of an alternate remedy in the form of an appeal being available, the petitioner should approach the appellate authority.
3
However, considering the peculiar facts of this case, I permit the petitioner to prefer the appeal before the appellate authority within 30 days.
In the event, the petitioner prefers an appeal within the aforesaid period along with an application appropriately explaining the delay, the appellate authority, having due regard to the above, shall condone the delay and shall hear out the appeal on merits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal, subject to compliance of other formalities by the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 15382 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of.
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (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.