Kamal Mondal vs. Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax, Baruipur Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamal Mondal, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (respondent No.1) and an appellate order dated 30.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 03.01.2023. The petitioner claims to have become aware of the adjudication order only in July 2026 when checking the common portal. The appeal filed before the appellate authority was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits. The petitioner contended that the proceedings and orders were contrary to law and violated principles of natural justice and prescribed procedure. The State respondents argued that the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation as the petitioner was granted ample opportunities.

Held

The Court held 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 on the common portal, and no separate intimation was given to the petitioner. This failure to provide separate intimation constituted a violation of natural justice, as it prevented the petitioner from replying to the notice. 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 ends of justice due to the peculiar facts of the case. The Court quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 30.08.2024. Respondent No.2 was directed to revisit the issue by considering the grounds taken in the petitioner's appeal on merits. Respondent No.2 was also directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks from the date of the order, with the decision to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated 30.08.2024, dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, is legal and valid, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim of not being properly intimated about the adjudication order, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contemplated under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was not properly communicated, as the show cause notice was only uploaded under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab on the common portal without separate intimation. This lack of proper notice prevented the petitioner from replying to the show cause notice, constituting a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal on limitation, without considering the merits, was illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and due compliance with the prescribed procedure under the Acts. State/Respondent's Arguments: The State respondents contended that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend their case, and therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation.