M/S Shreya Steel Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Bally And Salkia Charge And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shreya Steel Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated December 12, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bally & Salkia Charge, and an appellate order dated June 10, 2025, passed by the appellate authority. The appellate order dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice dated September 8, 2023, was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without any separate intimation, preventing them from responding. Consequently, they were unable to present their case on merits before the appellate authority. The State respondents argued that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities and the appeal was correctly dismissed for being time-barred.

Held

The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and the absence of separate intimation to the petitioner constituted a violation of natural justice, preventing them 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 deemed interference warranted in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the appellate order dated June 10, 2025, and the adjudication order dated December 26, 2023. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated September 8, 2023, within two weeks. The concerned authority was directed to consider this reply within four weeks, pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing, and communicate the decision within a week thereafter. The issue of the merits of the original demand was not decided by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on the sole ground of limitation, without considering the merits, is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that they did not receive proper intimation of the show cause notice? (Section 107 of the WBGST Act and Section 107 of the CGST Act, principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and no separate intimation was provided. This lack of actual intimation prevented them from responding to the notice. They further argued that the appellate authority dismissed their appeal solely on limitation without examining the merits, which violates principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. Revenue/State's arguments: The State respondents contended that the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunities to defend their case, and therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation.