Raju Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Raju Ghosh, filed a writ petition challenging an Appellate Order dated 22.05.2026 passed by respondent No. 8, an ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 5 under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017, and two recovery notices dated 20.02.2026. The tax period in question is July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner argued that a show cause notice was issued, but his request for adjournment was not reflected in the adjudication order. The date of personal hearing was fixed before the reply filing date. The adjudication order was passed ex parte and uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notices and Orders', of which the petitioner was unaware. The entire disputed tax of Rs 40,07,880/- was recovered from the Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner sought reconsideration and remand.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case warranting interference. The Court found that the show cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which deprived the petitioner of knowledge of the proceedings and constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court rejected the State's contention that the matter had attained finality due to procedural irregularities. The Court quashed and set aside the Appellate Order dated 22.05.2026, the ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2023, and the consequential recovery notices dated 20.02.2026. The Court directed respondent No. 5 to reconsider the petitioner's case and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, to be completed by 30th September 2026. The ratio decidendi is that a lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard, even if tax has been recovered, vitiates an ex parte order and necessitates a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017, is vitiated by procedural irregularities and a violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting its quashing and setting aside? The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, depriving him of knowledge of the proceedings. He also argued that his request for adjournment was ignored, and the personal hearing date was fixed prior to the reply filing date, leading to an ex parte order. The State argued that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings by filing an appeal before the appellate authority, which had attained finality. 2. Whether the recovery notices dated 20.02.2026, issued consequent to the ex parte adjudication order, are liable to be set aside? The petitioner argued that since the adjudication order is flawed, the consequential recovery notices should also be set aside. The State did not offer specific arguments on this point, other than the general contention that the matter had attained finality.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 18
Ct. No.10 Sws.M
WPA 13917 of 2026
Raju Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal&Ors.
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Ms. Shiwani Shaw Ms. Piyas Chowdhury …..for the petitioner Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. BijiteshMukuerrjee
….for the State-respondents
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.
None appears on behalf of the State-respondents in Court today.
MsManasiMukherjee, learned Junior Government Advocate with Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, learned Junior Government Advocate are engaged in this matter on behalf of the State. Their appearances be regularized accordingly from the office of the Legal Remembrancer.
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the legality and the validity of the Appellate Order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the respondent No. 8 under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity and convenience) for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner also
2 challenges the ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017 and two recovery notices dated 20.02.2026. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows: A) That a notice in Form GST DRC-01 bearing Ref. No. ZD1900230351849 dated 21.09.2023 has been issued to the registered tax payer requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the said notice along with interest and penalty. B) That the said intimation has been uploaded on the GST portal under the Tab “Additional Notices and Orders”. Subsequent thereto the same has been served upon the petitioner through speed post. C) That upon receipt of the Show Cause Notice the petitioner prayed for an adjournment, a fact that has not been reflected in the order of adjudication. D) That the date of the personal hearing mentioned in the Show Cause Notice has been fixed prior to the date of the filing of the reply. E) That an ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the
3 WBGST Act 2017, has been passed against the petitioner by the respondent No.
F) That although the order of adjudication has been uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders”, the petitioner has not been aware of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. G) That the respondent authority has already recovered the entire disputed tax amounting to Rs 40,07,880/- from the Electronic Credit Ledger. H) The petitioner prays for a reconsideration of the order of adjudication since the entire disputed tax has been recovered, and the interest of the revenue will not be prejudiced thereby. I) The petitioner also prays that the matter to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the issues involved therein, and also to set aside the two recovery notices both dated 20th February 2026. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondent submits as follows: A) That the entire amount has been recovered on account of tax from the electronic credit ledger without any recovery being made towards interest and penalty.
4 B) The petitioner has already participated in the proceedings by challenging the order of adjudication by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority which has already attained finality.
Having heard the parties and upon the considering the materials available on record, this court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage.
The court also noted that the Show Cause Notice as well as the Adjudication Order has been uploaded only under the Tab “Additional Notices and Orders”, resulted in the petitioner being deprived of knowledge of the proceedings, which constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice.
Since the entire disputed tax has already been recovered, the ends of justice would be made if an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner.
The contention of the State that the matter has attained finality, cannot be accepted in light of the procedural irregularities noted above.
In view of the above, this court passes the following directions. a) The orders passed by the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority dated 22.05.2026 and 18.12.2023 respectively along
5 with the consequential notices are hereby quashed and set aside, since the petitioner cannot be held liable under adjudication order passed ex parte. c) The respondent No. 5 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law upon affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. d) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent No. 5 on or before 30th September 2026. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent No. 5 and shall not seek any further adjournment.
It is made clear since this court has not gone into the merits of the case, the respondent No. 5 shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order and is at liberty to take an independent decision to consider the issue involved herein.
With the above observations and directions, the Writ petition is disposed of since affidavit has not been called for.
6
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(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.