Ramkrishna Datta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramkrishna Datta, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 28.02.2024 passed by respondent No. 3. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 09.11.2023 demanding tax, interest, and penalty. This notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab. The petitioner submitted a reply after the due date. The petitioner contends that the date of personal hearing mentioned in the show cause notice was before the reply date, and no opportunity for personal hearing was provided before the adverse order was passed, violating principles of natural justice. A recovery notice dated 19.08.2026 was also issued.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice was uploaded solely under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without any separate intimation, which led to the petitioner submitting their reply after the due date. Crucially, after receiving the reply, respondent No. 3 did not provide an opportunity for personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act. This omission was found to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court also noted that the ex-parte adjudication order was uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, further constituting a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the adjudication order dated 28.02.2024 and the recovery notice dated 19.08.2026 were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to file an additional reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the authority must consider within four weeks of receipt, passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording a hearing. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 28.02.2024, passed by respondent No. 3, is illegal and invalid for violating the principles of natural justice and prescribed procedure under the GST Acts? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 73 and Section 75(4) of the GST Acts). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, leading to a delayed reply. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that despite submitting a reply, respondent No. 3 failed to provide an opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act, thus violating principles of natural justice. The entire proceedings and the impugned order were claimed to be contrary to law. Revenue's arguments: The State-respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities to defend their case and that the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation.