Bidyabati Devi Jaiswal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah And Kadamtala Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bidyabati Devi Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge (respondent No. 1) under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order was based on a notice in Form DRC01 dated 27.11.2024, alleging non-payment of specified amounts along with interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that the notice and subsequent proceedings were illegal due to non-compliance with prescribed procedures. Specifically, the petitioner claimed the notice was only uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders,' preventing a proper response. The petitioner only became aware of the adjudication order when filing returns.
Held
The Court held that since the petitioner had not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply, an opportunity must be granted. The adjudication order dated 25.02.2025 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from the date of the order, for the financial year 2020-21. The respondent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's reply within eight weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing, and communicate their decision within one week thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer must be afforded a proper opportunity to respond to a show cause notice, especially if procedural deficiencies in its communication prevent such a response, leading to the quashing of subsequent adjudication orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 25.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, is legal and valid, considering the petitioner's alleged non-receipt of the show cause notice and inability to respond. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the proceedings were contrary to law and lacked due compliance with the prescribed procedure under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was merely uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders,' which hindered their ability to respond effectively. They only learned of the adjudication order upon filing their returns. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State-respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
26 18 Howrah and Kadamtala Charge & Ors.
Mr. Abhijat Das. Mr. Anirban Chatterjee. Ms. Anwesha Chakraborty. ….for the petitioner
Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Niladri Saha. ….for the State-respondents
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25.2.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘WBGST Act’) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the said ‘CGST Act’).
The petitioner submits that as per the impugned order, it has been alleged that a notice in Form DRC01 has been issued to registered tax payer vide reference ZD 191124053114H dated 27.11.2024 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest and penalty.
2
The petitioner contends that the said notice and the subsequent proceedings are contrary to law and have been passed without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. 5. The petitioner states that the intimation was merely uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ as a result of which the petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice issued by the respondent authority properly.
The petitioner submits that only at the time of filing the return, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner with regard to the issuance of the adjudication order dated 25.02.2025. 7. Having heard the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply to the same, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to do so.
The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of four weeks from date, for the financial year 2020-21. The respondent authority shall consider the same within a period of eight weeks, upon affording
3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate such decision within a week thereafter. Accordingly, the adjudication order dated 25.02.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
Since the affidavit has not been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Smita Das De, 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.