After Consultant’s Illness Left Senior Citizen Unaware Of GST Notices, Calcutta HC Quashes Order And Directs Appeal Merits Hearing

In brief

The question

Whether the respondent authorities could proceed with recovery and bank-account attachment without giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice.

The court held

The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 21 November 2025 and disposed of the writ petition without determining the merits of the tax dispute.

It also directed

It directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits, by a reasoned and speaking order, within six weeks of receiving the order, after giving the petitioner a personal hearing; the decision was to be communicated within a further week.

The Authority was to independently consider the attachment and recoveries, and the petitioner was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an ex parte adjudication order dated 21 November 2025 and the dismissal of his appeal as time-barred.

¶ 4

He alleged that he had not effectively received or become aware of the notices because his tax consultant, who managed his GST compliance, had been seriously ill; he was also a senior citizen with limited expertise in using the GST portal.

¶ 4, 6

After the adjudication, the respondents issued garnishee notices, attached his bank account, and recovered amounts from his Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner had also made a 10% pre-deposit for the appeal.

¶ 5

The State maintained that the show-cause notice had been served and that the petitioner had failed to respond or produce supporting documents.

¶ 8–10

02Issues

i.Whether the respondent authorities could proceed with recovery and bank-account attachment without giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice.

¶ 2

ii.Whether, in the circumstances, the appeal dismissed as time-barred should be remitted for consideration on its merits, including consideration of the recovery and attachment measures.

¶ 4–5, 12–13

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Sections 107(6) and 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding West Bengal GST Act provisions. Section 107(6) concerns the pre-deposit required for an appeal; Section 107(7) was identified as relevant to the treatment of recovery while the appeal is pending after the required payment.

¶ 2, 5, 12–13

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity to be heard before adverse action, and directed a reasoned decision after a personal hearing.

¶ 2, 12–13

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107

West Bengal Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s explanation—that he was unaware of the notices because of his consultant’s prolonged illness, and was a senior citizen without technical expertise in operating the GST portal—and concluded that he should not be left without a remedy due to those circumstances.

¶ 11

To balance the parties’ interests, it did not decide the tax dispute or the validity of the recovery measures itself. Instead, it remitted the appeal for a decision on the merits and directed the Appellate Authority to consider independently the bank attachment, the amounts recovered from the Electronic Credit Ledger, and the pre-deposit, in light of Section 107(7).

¶ 12–14