M/S. Shree Vinayak Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Purulia Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shree Vinayak Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 10.02.2021 and an appellate order dated 28.01.2025. The adjudication order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Purulia Charge. The petitioner's appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice dated 08.01.2021 was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without any separate intimation, preventing them from responding. They only became aware of the adjudication order upon a change of accountant. The State-respondents argued that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities and the appeal was rightly dismissed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice was only uploaded under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and no separate intimation was given, which prevented the petitioner from replying. 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, and considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court found interference warranted in the interest of justice. The adjudication order dated 10.02.2021, the appellate order dated 28.01.2025, and the show cause notice dated 08.01.2021 were quashed and set aside. The Court directed the respondent No. 1 to issue a fresh show cause notice within two weeks, to which the petitioner must respond within two weeks thereafter. The respondent No. 1 was also directed to afford a hearing and pass a fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks, with the decision to be communicated within a week thereafter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits, is legally sustainable, particularly when the petitioner alleges a violation of natural justice due to inadequate notice under Section 107 of the WBGST Act and CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders' and no actual intimation was provided, thus preventing them from responding. This lack of proper intimation led to a violation of principles of natural justice and due compliance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the dismissal of their appeal on limitation without considering the merits was contrary to law. Revenue/State's arguments: The State-respondents contended that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend their case, and therefore, the appeal was correctly dismissed on the ground of limitation.