Ex Parte Adjudication Order Quashed and Remanded for Non-Grant of Personal Hearing and Proper Notice Uploading

By | September 21, 2026
0 Comment
Ex Parte Adjudication Order Quashed and Remanded for Non-Grant of Personal Hearing and Proper Notice Uploading
Issue
Whether an ex parte adjudication order passed under Section 73 is legally sustainable when the Show Cause Notice and order were uploaded solely under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab without separate intimation, and no personal hearing was granted prior to passing the adverse order.
Facts
  • Issuance of SCN: Summary SCN and DRC-01 SCN were issued proposing a demand for tax or Input Tax Credit (ITC) not involving fraud under Section 73.
  • Flawed Portal Uploading: Both notices were uploaded strictly under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab on the GST portal without any separate intimation to the assessee.
  • Delayed Response: Due to the absence of separate notice or intimation, the assessee filed a delayed reply on March 13, 2024.
  • Ex Parte Order Passed: An ex parte adjudication order was passed under Section 73 without granting a personal hearing, and the order was uploaded under the same portal tab.
  • Appellate Dismissal & Writ Challenge: The assessee’s statutory appeal was dismissed as time-barred, prompting the filing of a writ petition challenging the cumulative procedural defects.
Decision
  • Violation of Statutory Hearing Mandate: The court held that Section 75(4) mandates granting a personal hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated or requested, which was denied as evident from the summary SCNs.
  • Insufficient Communication: Uploading notices exclusively under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab without individual intimation is insufficient to ensure effective participation and resulted in the delayed reply.
  • Adjudication Vitiated: The court ruled that the cumulative procedural infirmities vitiated the entire adjudication process.
  • Quashed and Remanded: The adjudication order was quashed, and the proper officer was directed to reconsider the reply dated March 13, 2024, afford a personal hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order in favor of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
  • Mandatory Personal Hearing under Section 75(4): An opportunity of personal hearing is a non-negotiable statutory requirement whenever an order adverse to the taxpayer is contemplated.
  • Defective Notice Service Vitiates Orders: Uploading SCNs or orders solely under obscure tabs on the GST portal without separate communication hampers a taxpayer’s right to defend, violating natural justice.
  • Reconsideration of Belated Replies: Where procedural lapses by the department prevent timely compliance, belated replies submitted by taxpayers must be taken on record and adjudicated on merits.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sumin Dutta
v.
State of West Bengal
Smita Das De, J.
WPA NO. 17905 of 2026 †
SEPTEMBER  8, 2026
Himangshu Kumar Ray, Saptak Sanyal, Subhasis Podder, Sushant Bagaria, Ms. Shiwani Shaw and Rantu Bose for the Petitioner. Debasish Chowdhury and Amit Kumar Roy for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the legality and validity of the adjudication order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the said WBGST Act”) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the said ‘CGST Acf), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on ground of limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows;
i. That a show cause notice in Form DRC 01 dated 26.12.2023 has been issued to the petitioner demanding tax, interest and penalty.
ii. The said notice has been uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Orders’. Due to this, the petitioner was compelled to submit the reply much after the due date.
iii. Without considering the reply the adjudicating authority passed an ex parte order of adjudication dated 24.04.2024 which was accordingly uploaded in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab.
iv. The petitioner came to know about the passing of the order of adjudication dated 24.04.2024 only after receiving a phone call from the GST Department on 10.07.2026.
v. That the entire proceedings and the impugned order are contrary to law and have been passed in violations of principles of natural justice and without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner filed a reply at a belated stage. The petitioner did not make any request for an opportunity of personal hearing, thus the GST Department proceeded on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that there is no specific rule prescribed under the statute to provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to the passing of an order of adjudication.
6. In this context the petitioner places reliance upon paragraph nos. 7 to 9 of a Division Bench Judgment in Goutam Bhowmik v. State of West Bengal  83 GSTL 155 (Calcutta), which are reproduced below:
“7. From bare perusal of the show cause notice under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, it is evident that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the proper officer before passing the impugned assessment order for the Financial Year 2018-19 i.e., from April 2018 to March 2019. Although in the show cause notice dated 15.01.2021 under Section 73 of the Act it was specifically mentioned by the proper officer addressing the petitioner that “You may appear before the undersigned for personal hearing either in person or through authorized representative for representing your case on the date, time and venue, if mentioned in table below” but in the table neither dated and time nor venue for personal hearing was mentioned.
8. Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 specifically provides as under:-

“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.”

9. Thus, as per provisions of sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, when the proper officer contemplated a decision against the petitioner/assessee, then it was mandatory for him to afford an opportunity of hearing. From the perusal of the show cause notice dated 15.01.2021, it is evident that the proper officer has declined to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as it has not communicated any date, time and venue of hearing.”
7. From the plain reading of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 it clearly envisages that 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.
8. In the present case, the petitioner was denied of personal hearing which is evident from the summary of show cause notices dated 24.8.2023 & 26.12.2023 respectively.
9. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records made available this Court observes as follows;
i. The petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case.
ii. The fact that show cause notice and adjudication order have been uploaded only under the “tab Additional Notice and Orders’ and no separate intimation has been given therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to file the reply at a belated stage.
10. In view of the above this Court directs as follows:
a. The adjudication order dated 24.04.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.
b. Respondent no. 3 is directed to revisit the issue by considering the grounds taken in reply dated 13.03.2024.
c. Respondent no. 3 shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned adjudication order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from date. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
11. With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
12. Since no affidavit in opposition has been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.