GST proceedings based solely on portal-uploaded notices without separate intimation violate natural justice.

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 18 December 2023 passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The proceedings originated from a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 21 September 2023, demanding tax, interest and penalty.

The notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders.”

The petitioner contended that no separate or actual intimation of the notice was received and, consequently, no reply could be filed.

The petitioner learned of the adjudication order only upon receiving a recovery notice dated 28 March 2026.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that adequate opportunities had been granted to the petitioner.

Whether the show-cause notice and consequential adjudication order were invalid for violation of natural justice when the notice was uploaded only under the GST portal tab “Additional Notice and Orders” without separate intimation to the petitioner.

Whether the adjudication order dated 18 December 2023 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act and the CGST Act should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

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 Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person facing adverse adjudication must receive a meaningful and effective opportunity to know the case against them and respond to it.

The Court held that mere uploading of the notice under the portal tab “Additional Notice and Orders,” without separate intimation in the circumstances of the case, resulted in denial of such opportunity.

The Court found that the petitioner 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 provided.

As a result, the petitioner was unable to respond before the adjudication order was passed.

Although the State contended that sufficient opportunities had been granted, the Court concluded that the procedure adopted did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing and therefore violated natural justice.

Considering these circumstances, the Court held that judicial interference was warranted and that both the notice and the consequential adjudication order required to be set aside.

The show-cause notice dated 21 September 2023 and the adjudication order dated 18 December 2023 were quashed and set aside.

The concerned respondent 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.

The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the reply, provide the petitioner 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 to the petitioner within one week thereafter.