JAI MAA KAMAKHYA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

2
02.09.2026
sb
Ct.9.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 1803 of 2025

Jai Maa Kamakhya
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh
Mr. Ved Rai
Mr. Hrisav Anirban Ghosh
… For the petitioner.

Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG
Ms. Esha Acharya
… For the State.



th
1. Challenging the order dated 18 July, 2025
passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of
the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”) refusing to entertain the appeal from an
th
order passed under Section 74 of the said Act dated 4
June, 2022 in respect of the tax period April, 2019 to
March, 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing in support
of the writ petition by drawing attention of this Court to
th
the order dated 14 May, 2025 passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in WPA 1071 of 2025 would submit
though the petitioner had initially challenged the order
passed under Section 74 of the said Act by filing a writ
petition before this Court, a Coordinate Bench of this
th
Court by an order dated 14 May, 2025 while refusing to
hear out the said writ petition on the ground of alternative

2
WPA 1803 of 2025

remedy had granted leave to the petitioner to prefer an
appeal under Section 107 of the said Act along with an
application for condonation of delay. Obviously, the Court
did not at that stage entertained the writ petition since an
alternative remedy was available. He has also drawn the
attention of this Court to the show cause notice and
submitted that only the date and time for submission of
reply to the show cause was provided without providing
date and time and venue for opportunity of hearing,
which constitutes statutory infraction.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned Assistant Additional Advocate
General appears on behalf of the State.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, I find that scheme of the said Act
provides multi-tier adjudicatory process. Not only the
registered tax payer is afford an opportunity to respond to
the pre-show cause notice in form GSTDRC01A but the
registered tax payers is also afforded with an opportunity
to respond to the show cause in form of GSTDRC01,
before a decision is taken. Further having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 75(4) of the said Act,
when an adverse order is contemplated against the
person chargeable with tax, irrespective of the fact
whether such person prayed for an opportunity of
personal hearing, the proper officer is obliged to provide
such opportunity to such person. In the instant case, the
show cause notice under Section 74 of the said Act is
th
dated 13 April, 2022. The order passed under Section 74

3
WPA 1803 of 2025

records that the petitioner did not respond to the show
cause and that the petitioner’s representative was heard
th
some times on 11 November, 2020, which is prior to the
date of issuance of show cause notice.
5. From a perusal of the order impugned it would
also transpire that 11 number of e-way bills were
generated but the goods were not transported or not
transported as per the details furnished in the e-way bills
and later the e-way bills were cancelled. The proper officer
found the grounds for cancellation of e-way bills were
stated as “data entry mistake” in (01) while in the other it
was recorded as “order cancelled”. The proper officer by
noting that the cancellation was effected within 4 hours
26 minutes of generation of e-way bills from a distance of
30 kms., was of the opinion that e-way bills were used for
more than one time to transport similar goods to evade
tax. It is also recorded in the order impugned that the
registered tax payer during the proceedings failed to
furnish any reply against the findings of e-way bill
cancellation though was provided with reasonable
opportunity to produce the documents in support of his
claim of cancellation, the registered tax payer did not
furnish any document. It is in this context that the above
order was passed. Although, the proper officer claims that
the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of
hearing, nothing is available on record to demonstrate
that any specific date, time and venue of personal hearing
as is required under Section 75(4) of the said Act was

4
WPA 1803 of 2025

notified to the petitioner before a decision was taken
under Section 74 (9) of the said Act.
6. Having regard to the above, I am of the view since
the statute contemplates providing opportunity of
hearing, such mandatory provision could not have been
ignored by the proper officer.
7. In the peculiar facts, I am of the view that the
th
above order dated 4 June, 2022 cannot be sustained
and the same is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the proper officer.
8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to use a response
th
to the show cause dated 13 April, 2022. If such response
is filed and uploaded on the portal within a period of two
weeks from date, the proper officer shall accept such
response and shall forthwith notify the date of personal
hearing by an appropriate notice on the common portal.
9. The proper officer shall decide on the cause on an
expeditious basis, without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to the petitioner, preferably within a period
of four weeks from the date of offering opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as directed above, even if no
response to the show cause is filed/uploaded as directed.
10. Since no other issue survives, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with
the requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)