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

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 26 April 2024 passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 31 December 2023 demanding tax, interest and penalty.

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

The petitioner contended that it received no separate or actual intimation and consequently could not respond to the notice.

The petitioner claimed to have discovered the notice and adjudication order only in May 2026, after its new accountant accessed the additional tab.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the department issued a recovery notice in Form GST-13 dated 14 August 2026 to the petitioner’s principal/employer, requiring payment of the petitioner’s receivables to the Government.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that adequate opportunities had been granted to the petitioner.

1. Whether uploading the show-cause notice only under the GST portal’s “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, without separate intimation, violated the principles of natural justice and deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to respond?

2. Whether the adjudication order dated 26 April 2024 and consequential recovery notice dated 14 August 2026 were liable to be quashed on account of the procedural violation?

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to recommence the proceedings by issuing a fresh show-cause notice and providing an opportunity to submit a reply and participate in a personal hearing?

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 adjudication of tax matters involving tax allegedly unpaid or short-paid, together with the statutory requirement of lawful adjudication under the applicable GST enactments.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person against whom adverse tax action is proposed must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to submit a reply and be heard.

The Court treated failure to provide such effective notice and opportunity as a procedural defect warranting judicial interference.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case because the show-cause notice was placed only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab and no separate intimation was shown to have been provided.

On that factual basis, the petitioner was unable to respond to the notice, and the resulting ex parte adjudication was held to constitute a violation of natural justice.

Although the State contended that adequate opportunities had been granted, the Court considered the absence of effective notice sufficient to justify interference with the notice, adjudication order and consequential recovery proceedings.

Respondent No. 1 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, following which the authority was required to consider the reply, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks from receipt of the reply.

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