Limitation-based GST appeal dismissal cannot stand where defective notice communication denied an effective hearing.

The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 31 July 2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 and the appellate order dated 17 June 2026 passed under Section 107 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 DRC-01 dated 21 January 2024 was uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab.

The petitioner claimed that it consequently did not receive effective intimation of the notice and was unable to respond.

The petitioner stated that it became aware of the adjudication order only upon receiving an email dated 17 July 2025.

Its statutory appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation without examination of the merits.

The State opposed the writ petition, contending that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunities to defend itself.

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground of limitation, in the circumstances alleged by the petitioner.

2. Whether the adjudication proceedings and order dated 31 July 2024 were vitiated by non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the adjudication and appellate orders should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

The Court applied Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs appeals against adjudication orders and prescribes the applicable limitation framework.

It further applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly the requirement that a taxable person receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse adjudication order is passed.

Where an appeal has been rejected solely on limitation and the petitioner establishes a prima facie case that the underlying proceedings may have proceeded without effective notice or opportunity of hearing, the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside the orders and direct fresh adjudication on merits.

The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case that the show-cause notice was uploaded under an allegedly inappropriate portal tab, resulting in the petitioner not receiving actual intimation and not responding to the notice.

The Court also noted that the appeal had been dismissed exclusively on limitation and that the appellate authority had not examined the petitioner’s substantive grounds.

In view of the alleged procedural irregularity, the delayed knowledge of the adjudication order, and the potential violation of natural justice, the Court held that interference was warranted in the interests of justice.

Rather than finally determining the tax dispute, it directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s grounds on merits after granting a proper hearing.

Respondent No. 1 was directed to reconsider the grounds raised in the petitioner’s appeal on merits, provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh, reasoned adjudication order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment, with communication of the decision within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.