GST adjudication order quashed where show-cause notice was uploaded without effective intimation, violating natural justice.

The petitioners challenged the adjudication order dated 19 February 2025 passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

A show-cause notice in Form DRC-01, dated 12 November 2024, demanding tax, interest and penalty, was uploaded on the GST portal only under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders”.

The petitioners contended that, because no separate intimation was provided, they did not receive actual notice and could not submit a reply.

They claimed to have discovered the adjudication order only upon receiving a recovery notice dated 18 March 2026.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioners had been granted sufficient opportunities to defend themselves.

The Court applied Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs determination of tax, interest and penalty in cases not involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person facing adverse tax adjudication must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to submit a defence before an order is passed.

The Court held that mere placement of a notice in a portal section not reasonably bringing it to the taxpayer’s attention, without separate intimation, was insufficient in the circumstances of the case.

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

Consequently, the petitioners were unable to respond to the notice, depriving them of an effective opportunity to contest the proposed demand.

The State’s assertion that ample opportunities had been granted could not cure the failure to provide effective notice.

Since the adjudication order was passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Court considered interference under its writ jurisdiction warranted.

It directed Respondent No. 4 to issue a fresh show-cause notice within two weeks.

The petitioners were directed to submit a comprehensive reply within two weeks thereafter.

Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider the reply, afford the petitioners a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks of receiving the reply; the decision was to be communicated within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.