GST adjudication order uploaded only under “Additional Notices and Orders” without separate intimation is unsustainable.

The petitioner challenged, inter alia, the adjudication order dated 9 December 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

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

The petitioner alleged that the date of personal hearing mentioned in the notice preceded the date for filing the reply, that no hearing was granted after submission of the reply, and that the adjudication order was passed ex parte in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Acts and the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner further alleged errors in the identification of the registered person and non-application of mind. The State opposed the petition, contending that adequate opportunities had been granted.

Whether uploading the adjudication order only under the GST portal’s “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, without separate intimation, constituted sufficient communication of the order and justified dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal on limitation.

Whether the adjudication proceedings violated Section 75(4) of the CGST and WBGST Acts and the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the petitioner a proper and effective opportunity of personal hearing.

Whether the adjudication order suffered from procedural irregularity and non-application of mind warranting judicial interference.

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

It also applied Section 75(4) of the GST Acts, which requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a taxable person so requests or where an adverse decision is contemplated.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of prior, effective notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse adjudication.

The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case, particularly because the adjudication order had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab and no separate intimation had been given.

In the context of the petitioner’s assertion that the order was discovered only after a subsequent communication from the GST Department, the Court considered the communication and limitation issue sufficiently doubtful to warrant interference.

The allegations that the hearing schedule was defective and that no effective personal hearing was granted after submission of the reply also disclosed a prima facie breach of Section 75(4) and natural justice.

Consequently, rather than permitting the impugned adjudication to stand, the Court directed a fresh consideration on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to reconsider the matter on merits, take into account the petitioner’s reply, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh, reasoned adjudication 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.

No affidavit in opposition having been called for, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed denied and not admitted.