GST Orders Are Void Without Proof of Service and a Mandatory Personal Hearing.

The Dispute: The “Invisible” Notice

The Conflict: For the first year of GST (2017-18), the tax authorities passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) creating a demand.

The Petitioner’s Stance: They moved a Writ Petition claiming they never received a notice for a personal hearing. They were essentially “sentenced” without a trial.
The Revenue’s Defense: The Department claimed that the notice was issued as per standard procedure. However, during the court proceedings, they could not produce a physical acknowledgment or even a digital screenshot proving the notice was uploaded to the portal or emailed.

The Judicial Verdict: Evidence over Assumption

The High Court ruled in favour of the Assessee (Remanded), quashing the demand order based on two critical pillars of law:

1. The Proof of Service (Section 169)

The Court emphasized that “service of notice” is a specific legal act. Under Section 169, the Department must prove that the notice was either delivered physically, sent by registered post, or made available on the GST portal.

The Failure: Because there was no screenshot of the online portal or postal acknowledgment, the Court held that no notice was served. The “Inquiry Report” itself admitted that no physical letter was ever given.

2. Mandatory Hearing (Section 75(4))

The ruling highlighted that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act is absolute. It states:

“An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”

Since a tax demand is clearly an “adverse decision,” the failure to provide a hearing made the entire adjudication order illegal.

2026 Context: Digital Evidence and the “Portal” Trap

By April 2026, the GST portal’s notification system has become more sophisticated, but the legal standards remain high:

The “Additional Notices” Tab: Many taxpayers miss notices because they look at the “User Services > View Notices” tab but forget to check the “View Additional Notices/Orders” tab. However, as this case proves, the Department still carries the burden to prove that the notice was actually “served” (accessible) to the user.
Email/SMS is not enough: Merely sending an SMS or Email is often seen as information about a notice, not the service of the notice itself. The official document must be on the portal or delivered physically.

Strategic Takeaways for Taxpayers in 2026

Audit the “Additional Notices” Tab: Regularly check all sections of the GST portal. If you find an order that was passed without a prior notice appearing in your dashboard, you have a strong case for a Writ.
Request a Hearing in Writing: In every reply to a Show Cause Notice (SCN), always include a standard line: “We request a personal hearing before any adverse order is passed.” This doubly secures your right under Section 75(4).
Demand the “Screenshot”: If the Department claims a notice was served online, ask for the System Log or a Timestamped Screenshot. If they cannot provide it, the order can be quashed in the High Court.
Remand is a “Second Life”: When a case is remanded, you get to file a fresh reply. Use this opportunity to fix any mistakes in your previous documentation.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Maya Store

Union of India

Om Narayan Rai, J.

WPA No. 19924 of 2025

FEBRUARY 23, 2026

Himangshu Kumar Ray, Ms. Shiwani Shaw, Gaurav Chakraborty and Subhasis Podder, Advs. for the Petitioner. Uday Shankar Bhattacharjee, A. Rajyashree and Anindya Sundar Das, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition assails an order in original dated December 14, 2023 (for the tax period July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018) passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereafter the ‘said Act, of 2017’).

2. It is the petitioners’ case that the order in original has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner although the order has adverse consequences on the petitioners.

3. In such view of the matter, a report in the form of affidavit was called for, from the respondent CGST Authorities. Such report has been filed by Mr.Bhattacharjee in court today. The same is taken on record.

4. The said report reveals that no physical letter calling upon the petitioners for personal hearing was ever given to the petitioners. The report however records that the petitioners were given a date of personal hearing “online through ACES-GST Application available in CITRIX APPSTORE”.

5. The report further states that from June, 2025 onwards the aforesaid application has been withdrawn and as such there is no record or proof or screenshot of any such online notice having been given to the petitioner.

6. In such view of the matter, there is nothing before this court to come to the definite conclusion that any notice was indeed served upon the petitioners thereby affording them an opportunity of hearing.

7. In terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017, if an order having adverse consequence is contemplated, grant of an opportunity of hearing is mandatory.

8. Since it has not been proved before this Court, to any decree of satisfaction, that the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned decision being taken, therefore the said decision falls foul of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017 which grant statutory recognition to such principles.

9. On such ground alone, the adjudication order dated December 14, 2023 stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. The petitioner’s shall have two weeks’ time from date to file their reply(ies) to the notice to show cause already issued to the petitioners. The Proper Officer shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law upon taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners, if any.

10. It is made clear that if the petitioners’ do not file any reply within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the petitioners’ right to file reply to the notice to show cause shall stand closed. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall be granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) if any adverse orders is contemplated against the petitioners.

11. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be decided by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.

12. The petitioner shall not be entitled to question the adjudication proceedings conducted by the Proper Officer in terms of this order on the ground of limitation unless such ground was available to the petitioner at the time when the notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner.

13. WPA 19924 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.