Nithil Agarwal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Nithil Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 31.05.2023, passed by respondent No. 4 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that a show cause notice dated 10.08.2022 was issued and uploaded only on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without any separate intimation. This prevented the petitioner from responding to the notice, leading to the impugned order being passed in violation of natural justice and statutory procedure. The State respondents contended that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities and the appeal was dismissed on limitation.

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 adequate notice constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it prevented the petitioner from replying to the notice. Consequently, the adjudication order dated 31.05.2023 and the consequential recovery notice dated 14.10.2025 were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the authority was to consider within four weeks, passing a fresh reasoned order after affording a hearing. The decision was to be communicated within a week thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte adjudication order dated 31.05.2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act and CGST Act, is illegal and invalid due to a violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural non-compliance? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice dated 10.08.2022 was uploaded solely on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and no direct intimation was provided. This lack of actual notice prevented the petitioner from submitting a response, rendering the subsequent proceedings and the ex parte adjudication order contrary to law and violative of natural justice principles and statutory procedure. Revenue's arguments: The State respondents opposed the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunities to present their case, and therefore, the appeal was correctly dismissed on grounds of limitation.