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 19.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge. The impugned order was passed 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 notice in form DRC01, dated 20.08.2024, was issued, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay a specified amount along with interest and penalty. The petitioner argued that this notice and subsequent proceedings were illegal and passed without due compliance with the prescribed procedure. He claimed the intimation was merely uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders,' preventing him from responding properly. He only became aware of the adjudication order dated 19.02.2025 upon receiving a phone call from the respondent authority around the third week of August 2026.

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner had not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply to the same, he must be given an opportunity to do so. The Court quashed and set aside the adjudication order dated 19.02.2025. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from the date of the order, for the financial year 2020-21. The respondent authority was directed to consider the reply within eight weeks, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and communicate the decision within a week thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a party must be afforded a proper opportunity to respond to a show cause notice, and if such opportunity is demonstrably denied due to procedural lapses in communication, the subsequent adjudication order can be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 19.02.2025, 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 proceedings were contrary to law and lacked due compliance with the prescribed procedure under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. He contended that the notice was uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notice and Orders,' which hindered his ability to respond effectively. He further stated that he only learned of the adjudication order dated 19.02.2025 through a phone call from the respondent authority in August 2026. The State respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend his case and that the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitations.