Adjudication Order Set Aside as Premature Hearing and Incorrect Portal Upload Denied Effective Hearing
Adjudication Order Set Aside as Premature Hearing and Incorrect Portal Upload Denied Effective Hearing
Issue
Whether an adjudication order passed under Section 73 is legally sustainable when a personal hearing is fixed before the expiry of the reply period and the order is uploaded under an incorrect tab on the GST portal.
Facts
-
Tax Period: The dispute relates to the determination of tax for the period March 2018 to 2019 under WBGST/CGST.
-
Premature Personal Hearing: The Show Cause Notice (SCN) granted time to file a reply, but the department scheduled the personal hearing prior to the expiry of the reply period.
-
Incorrect Portal Uploading: The adjudication order dated January 22, 2024, was uploaded on the GST portal under the ‘View Additional Notices’ tab instead of the ‘View Notices and Orders’ tab.
-
Coercive Recovery: The department issued Form DRC-13, attached the petitioner’s bank account, and realized the entire tax demand.
-
Writ Petition: The petitioner assailed the adjudication order dated January 22, 2024, and the consequential bank recovery through a writ petition.
Decision
-
Denial of Meaningful Opportunity: The court held that scheduling a personal hearing before the reply period expired failed to afford a meaningful opportunity to the petitioner and violated the statutory mandate of Section 75.
-
Defective Notice/Order Upload: Uploading the order under an incorrect portal tab was misleading and could cause the petitioner to miss the statutory appeal timeline.
-
Quashing and Remand: The court set aside the adjudication order dated January 22, 2024, quashed the Form DRC-13 attachment along with consequential recovery actions, and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after allowing time for reply and a proper personal hearing in favor of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
-
Proper Order of Hearing: Personal hearings must be scheduled after the period provided for filing a reply has lapsed, ensuring the taxpayer can present a complete defense.
-
Correct Portal Tab Uploading: Adjudication orders and notices must be uploaded under their proper designated tabs on the GST portal so taxpayers receive due notice and retain access to appellate remedies.
-
Remand and Restoration: Where natural justice and procedural mandates are breached, coercive recovery measures such as bank attachments via Form DRC-13 will be quashed, and proceedings remanded for fresh adjudication.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harphool Chowdhury
v.
State of West Bengal
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
WPA 1951 of 2026
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
Himangshu Kr. Ray, Subhasis Poddar, Abhilash Mittal and Mrs. Hiqa Naz Pradhan, Advs. for the Petitioner. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP and Ms. Rashika Agarwal for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. Challenging the order dated 22nd January, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the tax period of March 2018 to 2019, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that though the petitioner was offered an opportunity to file response to the showcause, the date of personal hearing provided therein, was prior to the date of filing of such response. It is also the petitioner’s case that the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act was uploaded on the common portal under the view additional notices tab and not under the view notices and orders tab.
4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit by reasons of the aforesaid, the petitioner could not identify the order for the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal in time. This apart, according to him, there has been violation of Section 75(4) of the said Act inasmuch as no appropriate opportunity of hearing was provided. By drawing attention of this Court to the notice dated 27th July, 2026 issued in form GST DRC 13 and the notice dated 14th August, 2026, he would submit that not only the petitioner’s bank account had been attached but the entire demand on account of tax has already been realized.
5. The State is represented.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner in the instant case may not have been afforded with an appropriate opportunity of hearing at the first instance especially when the date for offering opportunity of hearing was prior to the date for filing response. Though an opportunity of hearing was granted, calling upon the petitioner to make an oral representation for being heard before the date for submission of response was to expire, does not appear to be meaningful opportunity of hearing. On such ground, I find that the order suffers from the non-compliance of Section 75(4) of the said Act. This apart, as noticed above, the order was uploaded under the view additional notices tab and not under the view notices and orders tab which is ordinarily meant for uploading orders; the petitioner may have missed the matter and a valuable opportunity to prefer an appeal from the same.
7. In view of the above and noting that the department has already realized taxable amount, I am of the view that it would be prudent at this stage to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority so as to afford the petitioner with an opportunity to respond to the showcause and to be afforded with an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75 (4) of the said Act. In view thereof, by setting aside the order dated 22nd January, 2024, I remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits. The petitioner shall be at liberty to respond to the show-cause within a period of two weeks from date and if such response is filed, or in the event, the same is not filed, the proper officer shall hear out and dispose of the show-cause after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, the order of attachment issued in form DRC 13 dated 27th July, 2026 and other consequential orders, if any, stand quashed.
8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.