Ranjit Barman vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ranjit Barman, challenges an adjudication order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 and an appellate order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner's appeal before Respondent No. 2 was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contends that a show cause notice dated 11.01.2021 was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without any separate intimation, preventing him from responding. He only became aware of the adjudication order in May 2024. The petitioner argues that the proceedings and orders violate principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. The State respondents opposed the petition, arguing the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation as the petitioner had ample opportunity.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and the absence of separate intimation meant the petitioner was unable to reply to it. This was considered 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 found interference warranted in the interests of justice, given the peculiar facts. The Court quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 27.08.2024 and the adjudication order dated 21.12.2021, including consequential bank attachments. Respondent No. 3 was directed to revisit the issue on merits, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned adjudication order within 12 weeks. The ratio decidendi is that a dismissal on limitation without considering merits, when there is a violation of natural justice in the service of a show cause notice, is unsustainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on the sole ground of limitation, without considering the merits, is legally sustainable, considering the alleged violation of natural justice due to the method of serving the show cause notice under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and no separate intimation was provided. This lack of actual intimation prevented the petitioner from responding to the notice, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the adjudication order and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal on limitation were contrary to law and procedure. The petitioner relied on the fact that he only learned of the adjudication order in May 2024, after his accountant checked the portal. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State respondents contended that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend his case, and therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026
Court No.10
DL/Item No.–28
[Milan] ….for the Petitioner
Ms. Prithu Dudhoria, Ms. Sruti Datta
….for the State/Respondent
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 21.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 and the appellate order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 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; i. That a show cause notice in Form DRC 01 No. ZD1901210026860 dated 11.01.2021
2 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 came to know about the adjudication order dated 21.12.2021 only after the accountant checked the common portal in the month of May, 2024. iv. 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. v. 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.
3
Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records made available this Court observes as follows; 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 27.08.2024 and the adjudication order dated 21.12.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The consequential bank attachments are also hereby quashed and set aside. b. Respondent no.3 is directed to revisit the issue by considering the grounds taken in appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits. c. Respondent no.3 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh
4 reasoned adjudication order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from date. Such decision shall be 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.