M/S Anil Infracom vs. Senior Joint Commissioner, Of Revenue, GST Appellate Authority, Medinipur Circle And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S ANIL INFRACOM, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated July 5, 2024, and an appellate order dated February 28, 2026. The appellate order, passed by the Senior Joint Commissioner, GST Appellate Authority, dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice dated May 14, 2024, was issued and uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without any separate intimation. This lack of proper notification prevented the petitioner from responding to the show cause notice, leading to the dismissal of their appeal without considering the merits. The petitioner argued that these proceedings violated principles of natural justice and statutory procedure.
Held
The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It was observed that the show cause notice was only uploaded under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and no separate intimation was given to the petitioner. This failure to provide proper intimation prevented the petitioner from replying to the notice, constituting a violation of natural justice. Since the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the ground of limitation and not on merits, the Court deemed interference warranted in the interests of justice. Consequently, the appeal order dated February 28, 2026, and the adjudication order dated July 5, 2024, were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the concerned authority was to consider within four weeks, passing a fresh reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The decision was to be communicated within a week thereafter. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the CGST Act and WBGST Act? The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not properly served as it was only uploaded on the GST portal under a specific tab without any direct intimation. This failure to provide actual notice prevented them from responding, leading to a violation of natural justice. They contended that the appellate authority should have considered the merits of the case rather than dismissing the appeal on limitation. The State respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities to defend their case and that the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026
Court No.10
DL/Item No.–31
[Milan] WPA 13216 of 2026
M/S ANIL INFRACOM VS SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER, OF REVENUE, GST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MEDINIPUR CIRCLE & ORS.
Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee ….for the Petitioner
Mr. Vipual Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mrinal Das, Ms. Prithu Dudhria, Ms. Sruti Datta
….for the State/Respondents Mr. Amit Sharma ….for Union of India
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The present petition has been filed challenging, inter alia, the legality and validity of the adjudication order dated July 5, 2024 passed by the respondent No.2 and the appellate order dated February 28, 2026 passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 107 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’), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on ground of limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows;
2 i. That a show cause notice in Form DRC 01 No. ZD190524022245K dated May 14, 2024 has been issued to the petitioner demanding tax, interest and penalty. ii. That said notice has been uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Orders’. Due to this, the petitioner did not get any actual intimation and hence could not respond to the show cause notice. iii. That the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act but the same has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits. iv. That the entire proceedings and the impugned order are contrary to law and have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted since the petitioner has been granted ample opportunities to defend his case, the appeal has been rightly dismissed on limitation.
Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records made available this Court observes as follows;
3 i. The petitioner has been able to make a prima facie case. ii. The fact that show cause notice has been only uploaded under the ‘tab Additional Notice and Orders’ and no separate intimation has been given therefore the petitioner has been unable to reply to the same. This constitutes a violation of natural justice.
Since the petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority only on the ground of limitation and not on merits, considering the peculiar facts of the case, interference by this Court is warranted in ends of justice.
In view of the above this Court directs as follows: a.
The appeal order dated February 28, 2026 and the adjudication order dated July 5, 2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. b. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated May 14, 2024 before the concerned authority within two weeks from date. Such reply shall be considered within four weeks from the date of receipt of the reply by passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such decision shall be
4 communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
Since no affidavit in opposition has 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.