Madhusudan Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Midnapore Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Madhusudan Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and an appellate order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation by the appellate authority. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice was issued on 09.04.2024, but they only became aware of it in January 2025 through the GST common portal. They argued that the dismissal of their appeal on limitation, without considering the merits, violated principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. The State respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was given ample opportunities and the appeal was rightly dismissed for being time-barred.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice was uploaded only under the ‘tab Additional Notice and Orders’ on the GST portal, and no separate intimation was provided to the petitioner. This lack of specific intimation prevented the petitioner from replying to the notice, constituting a violation of natural justice. Since the appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation and not on merits, the Court found interference warranted in the interest of justice. Consequently, the appellate order dated 15.05.2025 was quashed and set aside. The appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) was directed to reconsider the appeal on its merits, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits, is legal and valid, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that they were unaware of the show cause notice until much later and that its upload method violated principles of natural justice (turning on Section 107 of the WBGST Act and CGST Act, and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of their appeal solely on limitation was contrary to law and violated principles of natural justice. They claimed they only became aware of the show cause notice in January 2025 via the GST portal, implying a lack of proper intimation. They asserted that the entire proceedings and the impugned orders were passed without due compliance with the prescribed procedure. Revenue/State's arguments: The State respondents contended that the petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunities to defend their case, and therefore, the appeal was correctly dismissed on the grounds of limitation.