Rajesh Kumar Shaw vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Shaw, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge, under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice in form DRC01, dated 29.04.2025, was issued but only uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders.' The petitioner claims he was unaware of this notice and the subsequent adjudication order until contacted by the respondent authority in August 2026. The State respondents argued that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities and the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitations.

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner was not able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply, an opportunity must be granted. The adjudication order dated 22.12.2025 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks for the financial year 2021-22. The respondent authority was directed to consider the reply within eight weeks, pass a reasoned order after affording a hearing, and communicate the decision within a week thereafter. The Court's reasoning was based on ensuring the petitioner had a fair opportunity to present their case, as the procedural defect of non-receipt of the show cause notice was established. The ratio decidendi is that a party must be afforded a proper opportunity to respond to a show cause notice, and if this opportunity is demonstrably denied due to procedural flaws by the authority, the resultant order can be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 22.12.2025, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST Act and CGST Act, 2017, is legal and valid, considering the petitioner's claim of not receiving the show cause notice properly. The petitioner argued that the notice was merely uploaded on the GST portal, preventing a proper response and thus violating due process. The State respondents contended that the petitioner had sufficient opportunities to defend their case, and the dismissal on limitations was justified. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, given the circumstances of its alleged non-receipt. The petitioner sought an opportunity to file a reply, while the State respondents opposed this, asserting the dismissal on limitations was correct.