Rahul Pal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Rahul Pal, challenged an ex parte adjudication order dated 13.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that a show cause notice dated 04.08.2022 was uploaded only on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without any separate intimation, preventing him from responding. Furthermore, the notice indicated 'N.A.' for personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice. The petitioner also stated that Rs. 1,12,716/- was recovered from his Electronic Credit Ledger after filing the writ petition on 04.08.2026.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice being uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation, constituted a violation of natural justice, as it prevented the petitioner from replying. Consequently, the adjudication order dated 13.09.2022 and consequential notices were quashed and set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. The concerned authority is to consider this reply within four weeks, pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing, and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a week thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte adjudication order dated 13.09.2022, passed by respondent No. 3, is illegal and invalid for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, specifically Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was not properly served as it was only uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders' without any direct intimation, thus preventing a response. They further argued that the absence of a personal hearing, indicated by 'N.A.' in the notice, violated Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Goutam Bhowmick vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. to support the mandatory nature of personal hearings. The State respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend his case.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026
Court No.10
DL/Item No.–22
[Milan] ….for the Petitioner
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Ms. Manasi Mukherjee.
….for the State/Respondents
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 ex parte adjudication order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 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‟), 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 dated 04.08.2022 has been issued to the
2 petitioner demanding tax, interest and penalty. ii. That said notice has been uploaded on the GST portal under the tab „Additional Notice and Orde
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.