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

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 21 August 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, 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 17 May 2024 demanded tax, interest and penalty.

The notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, and the petitioner contended that no separate or effective intimation was provided.

Consequently, the petitioner did not file a reply and claimed to have discovered the notice and adjudication order only when a new accountant examined the portal in May 2026.

The petitioner also stated that ₹70,696 had been recovered from its electronic credit ledger on 16 June 2025.

The State opposed the petition, contending that adequate opportunities had been granted before the adjudication order was passed.

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

Whether the show-cause notice dated 17 May 2024 and the adjudication order dated 21 August 2024 were liable to be quashed on account of procedural unfairness and non-compliance with the applicable GST adjudication procedure.

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 require adjudication of tax, interest and penalty claims after issuance of notice and provision of a reasonable opportunity to the taxable person to respond.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, under which a person must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is made.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case because the show-cause notice was placed only in the portal’s “Additional Notice and Orders” section and no separate intimation was shown to have been provided.

Although the State argued that sufficient opportunities had been granted, the Court concluded that the manner of communicating the notice had prevented the petitioner from becoming aware of the proceedings and filing a reply.

This failure deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to defend the case and constituted a violation of natural justice.

In view of these peculiar circumstances, the Court held that interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted.

The respondent was directed to issue a fresh show-cause notice within two weeks.

The petitioner was required to submit a comprehensive reply within two weeks thereafter.

The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the reply, afford the petitioner a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks of receiving the reply; the decision was to be communicated within one further week.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no separate direction recorded regarding the amount recovered from the electronic credit ledger.