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

The petitioners challenged the adjudication order dated 18 September 2023 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.

A show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 11 August 2023, demanding tax, interest and penalty, was uploaded only under the GST portal tab titled “Additional Notice and Orders”.

The petitioners contended that they consequently received no effective intimation of the notice and were unable to respond.

They claimed to have learnt of 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 adequate 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.

The statutory adjudication process must comply with procedural fairness and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, require effective notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse adjudication order is passed.

The Court found that the petitioners had established a prima facie case because the show-cause notice was uploaded only in the “Additional Notice and Orders” section and no separate intimation was shown to have been given.

In those circumstances, the petitioners were unable to respond before the adjudication order was passed.

The Court held that the absence of effective notice deprived the petitioners of a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves and constituted a violation of natural justice, notwithstanding the State’s submission that sufficient opportunities had been afforded.

As the adjudication process under Section 73 had proceeded without due compliance with procedural fairness, interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to issue a fresh show-cause notice 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 a 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.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.