Uploading a GST show-cause notice only under “Additional Notices and Orders” violates natural justice.

The petitioners challenged the adjudication order dated 8 April 2024 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 30 January 2024, demanding tax, interest and penalty, was uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders”.

The petitioners contended that, because no separate or actual intimation of the notice was provided, they could not respond to it. They claimed to have become aware of the adjudication order only upon receiving a recovery notice dated 20 January 2026.

The State respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioners had been afforded sufficient 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 of facts.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person facing adverse fiscal proceedings must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to submit a reply and be heard.

The Court held that mere uploading of the show-cause notice under an “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, without separate intimation resulting in the taxpayer’s inability to respond, could constitute a violation of natural justice.

The Court found that the petitioners 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 given.

Consequently, the petitioners were unable to file a response before the adjudication order was passed.

Although the State argued that adequate opportunities had been granted, the Court treated the absence of effective notice and opportunity to reply as a procedural defect affecting the validity of the entire adjudication process.

In view of this violation of natural justice, the Court considered interference under its writ jurisdiction warranted.

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

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

Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider the reply, grant the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks from receipt of the reply, in accordance with law.

The decision was to be communicated to the petitioners within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.