GST proceedings based solely on notices uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders” violate natural justice.

The petitioners challenged the adjudication order dated 12 June 2024 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 GST DRC-01 dated 10 May 2024, raising demands of tax, interest and penalty, had allegedly been uploaded only under the GST portal tab titled “Additional Notice and Orders.”

The petitioners contended that they received no separate or effective intimation of the notice and therefore could not submit a reply.

They claimed to have first become aware of the adjudication order upon receiving a recovery notice dated 18 March 2026.

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

The proceedings were governed by Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which require adjudication of tax, interest and penalty demands after issuance of notice and provision of a reasonable opportunity to respond.

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

A notice that is not effectively brought to the taxpayer’s knowledge cannot ordinarily support a valid ex parte or adverse adjudication.

The Court found that the petitioners 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 furnished.

In those circumstances, the petitioners were unable to submit a reply to the notice.

The Court treated the absence of effective communication as a violation of natural justice, notwithstanding the State’s contention that adequate opportunity had been granted.

Since the adjudication order followed a procedurally defective notice and the petitioners had been denied a meaningful opportunity to defend the demand, the Court held that judicial interference was warranted in the interests of justice.

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

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

Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider the reply, afford the petitioners an opportunity of 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, without calling for an affidavit in opposition.