Sufal Halder vs. The Deputy Commissiioner Of Revenue, Salt Lake Charge And Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. It observed that the show cause notice being uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation, prevented the petitioner from replying and constituted a violation of natural justice. Since the petitioner's appeal was dismissed solely on limitation and not on merits, the Court found interference warranted in the interest of justice. Consequently, the adjudication order dated February 11, 2025, and the appellate order dated March 25, 2026, were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the concerned authority was to consider within four weeks by passing a fresh reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Sufal Halder, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated February 11, 2025, and an appellate order dated March 25, 2026. The appellate order, passed by respondent no.2 under Section 107 of the WBGST Act and CGST Act, dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice dated November 14, 2024, was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without any separate intimation, preventing him from responding. The State respondents argued that the petitioner had ample opportunities and the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under Section 107 of the WBGST Act and CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not properly served as it was only uploaded on the GST portal under a specific tab without personal intimation, leading to a violation of natural justice and procedural non-compliance. The entire proceedings and impugned orders were thus illegal. Revenue's arguments: The State respondents contended that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunities to defend his case, and therefore, the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds by the appellate authority was justified.