SIRSENDU HATI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE TAX, BALURGHAT CHARGE AND ORS.

01.09.26
10 Ct. No.10
AGM
WPA 15969 of 2026

Sirsendu Hati
vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax,
Balurghat Charge & Ors.

Mr. Sandip Choraria.
Mr. Akash Chakraborty.
Mr. R. Manna.
….for the petitioner

Mr. Prithu Dhdhoria.
Ms. Sruti Datta.
….for the State-respondents


Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee.
Mr. K. K. Maity.
… For the CGST Authority

Mr. Debtanay Banerjee.
Ms. Biswadeepa Mandal.
… for the respondent no. 8


1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be
kept with the record.

2. State respondent remains unrepresented
in Court today.
3. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned advocate
along with Ms. Sruti Datta, learned advocate are
engaged in this matter on behalf of the State.
Their appearances be accordingly regularized
from the office of the Government Pleader.
4. The present writ petition has been filed
challenging inter alia, the legality and validity of
the adjudication order dated 18.12.2023 passed
by the respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the

2
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
Act’).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
as follows;
i. That a show cause notice in Form DRC 01 No.
ZD1909230353564 dated 21.09.2023 has been
issued to the petitioner demanding tax, interest
and penalty.
ii. That said notice has been uploaded on the
GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and
Orders’. Due to this, the petitioner did not get any
actual intimation and hence could not respond to
the show cause notice.
iii. That the petitioner came to know above
the adjudication order dated 18.12.2023 only
upon receiving a recovery notice dated
28.03.2026.

iv. That the entire proceedings and the
impugned order are contrary to law and have been
passed in violation of principles of natural justice
and without due compliance with the procedure
prescribed under the said Act.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State
respondents opposed the writ petition and

3
submitted since the petitioners have been granted
ample opportunities to defend his case, the
adjudication order has been rightly passed.
7. Having heard the parties and upon
perusing the records made available this Court
observes as follows;
i. The petitioners have been able to make
out a prima facie case.
ii. The fact that show cause notice has been
only uploaded under the ‘tab Additional
Notice and Orders’ and no separate
intimation has been given therefore, the
petitioner has been unable to reply to the
same. This constitutes a violation of
natural justice.
8. Considering the peculiar facts of the case,
interference by this Court is warranted in ends of
justice.
9. In view of the above this Court directs as
follows:

a. The show cause notice dated 21.09.2023
and the adjudication order dated
18.12.2023 are hereby quashed and set
aside.
b. Respondent no. 4 is directed to issue a
fresh show cause notice on the petitioner
within a period of two weeks. The

4
petitioner shall respond the same by filing
a comprehensive and detailed reply within
two weeks thereafter before the
respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1
shall consider and dispose of the reply
filed by the petitioner by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of the reply in accordance with law
upon affording an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner.
c. Such decision shall be communicated to
the petitioners within a week thereafter.
10. With the above observations and
directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
11. 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.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this
order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as
early as possible.

(Smita Das De, J.)