Failure to separately intimate GST proceedings uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders” violates natural justice.

The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 and the appellate order dated 28.01.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground of limitation.

A show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 16.05.2024, demanding tax, interest and penalty, was uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders”.

The petitioner claimed that he became aware of the adjudication order only after receiving a telephone call from Respondent No. 4 in the last week of January 2026, after which he preferred an appeal.

The State respondents contended that the petitioner had received a hard copy of the show-cause notice and had been granted adequate opportunities to defend the proceedings.

Whether the uploading of the show-cause notice and adjudication order only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, without separate intimation, violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground of limitation without examining the matter on merits?

Whether the appellate order dated 28.01.2026 was liable to be quashed and the appeal directed to be considered on merits?

The Court applied Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs appeals against adjudication orders and prescribes the applicable limitation framework.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of adequate and effective notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond before adverse adjudication.

The Court held that where proceedings are uploaded in a manner that does not effectively bring them to the taxpayer’s notice, and the taxpayer is thereby unable to respond, the proceedings may be treated as procedurally unfair.

The Court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case because the show-cause notice and adjudication order had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab and no separate intimation had been given.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the petitioner was unable to reply effectively and that the procedure resulted in a violation of natural justice, notwithstanding the State’s assertion that a hard copy of the notice had been received.

Since the appeal had been rejected on limitation and had not been examined on merits, the Court considered it appropriate, in the peculiar facts, to intervene and restore the appellate process rather than determine the tax dispute itself.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to admit and reconsider the petitioner’s appeal on merits, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law within twelve weeks from the date of the order.

The fresh decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.