Biswa Nath Mondal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Biswa Nath Mondal, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 16.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice dated 22.12.2023 was issued and uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ without any separate intimation. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the notice and could not respond. The petitioner only became aware of the adjudication order when a recovery notice in DRC-13 was issued on 22.05.2026. The petitioner argued that the proceedings and order were passed in violation of natural justice and prescribed procedures. The State-respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities and the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It found that the show cause notice was only uploaded under the ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ tab, and no separate intimation was provided 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 Court quashed and set aside the adjudication order dated 16.04.2024. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of the order's communication. Respondent no. 2 was directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order of adjudication within 12 weeks, with the decision to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer must receive actual notice of proceedings, and mere uploading of notices on a portal without direct intimation can violate natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice solely under the ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ tab on the GST portal, without separate intimation, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the subsequent adjudication order invalid? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the lack of direct intimation for the show cause notice, with it being merely uploaded on the portal, prevented them from responding. This failure to provide adequate notice violated the principles of natural justice and the prescribed procedure under the GST Act. The petitioner relied on the fact that they only learned of the adjudication order upon receiving a recovery notice, highlighting the procedural deficiency. State-respondents' arguments: The State-respondents contended that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunities to defend their case. They argued that the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds was justified, implying that the petitioner had not acted diligently.