GST adjudication order set aside where inadequate show-cause notice intimation violated natural justice.

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 5 February 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding tax, interest and penalty.

A show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 24 October 2024 was uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders”.

The petitioner contended that no separate or effective intimation of the notice was provided, as a result of which he could not respond to it. He claimed to have learned of the adjudication order only upon receiving a recovery notice dated 16 December 2025.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that adequate opportunities had been granted to the petitioner.

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, suppression or wilful misstatement.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a taxpayer must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before an adverse adjudication order is passed.

The Court also relied on the general statutory requirement that tax adjudication must comply with the procedure prescribed under the applicable GST enactments.

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

In the Court’s view, this prevented the petitioner from becoming effectively aware of the proceedings and from filing a reply. Consequently, the adjudication order could not be sustained merely on the State’s assertion that ample opportunity had been granted, since the opportunity was not meaningful in the absence of proper notice.

The Court therefore held that the proceedings violated natural justice and that interference was warranted in the interests of justice.

The show-cause notice dated 24 October 2024, the adjudication order dated 5 February 2025, and all consequential notices, if any, were quashed and set aside.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to issue a fresh show-cause notice within two weeks. The petitioner was directed to file a comprehensive reply within two weeks thereafter. Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider the reply, afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks from receipt of the reply; the decision was to be communicated within one week thereafter.