Ramkrishna Banerjee Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Srirampur Charge & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The writ petition challenges an adjudication order dated August 11, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017, whereby the petitioner was held liable to pay tax on several counts. The petitioner assails the order on multiple grounds, alleging that it suffers from incurable defects.
The primary contention is that the impugned order was passed based on Notification No. 56 of 2023–Central Tax dated December 28, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and the corresponding State Notification, purportedly issued under Section 168A of the 2017 Act. The petitioner argues that these notifications are ultra vires Section 168A as they were issued without the existence of any “force majeure” situation that would justify invocation of the power to extend time limits under that provision.
It is further submitted that the adjudication order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and in breach of Section 75(4) of the Act, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, despite the order adversely affecting him.
On the issue of delay in approaching the Court, the petitioner contends that he was unaware of the adjudication order as it was not properly served. According to the petitioner, the order was merely uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab and was not otherwise communicated. The petitioner claims to have become aware of the order only upon receipt of a recovery notice dated November 13, 2025 served on his bank. Immediately thereafter, he filed the present writ petition.
The learned Advocate for the respondent State GST Authorities sought time to file an affidavit in opposition. Since the petitioner has challenged the vires of the notifications forming the basis of the impugned order, the High Court entertained the writ petition.
The Court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Ram Kumar Sinhal Vs State of West Bengal, reported at (2025) 177 taxmann.com 48 (Calcutta), particularly paragraph 12, which held that uploading notices and orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the portal does not constitute proper service. In light of this precedent, the Court found the petitioner’s explanation for the delayed approach to be satisfactory.
The Court also observed that violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing, vitally affects the validity of the impugned order. Considering the challenge to the vires of the notifications and the alleged breach of statutory provisions and natural justice, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a strong arguable case.
Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order restraining the respondent GST authorities from taking any steps to recover any amount from the petitioner on the strength of the impugned adjudication order dated August 11, 2024, until disposal of the writ petition. As the petitioner’s bank accounts had been attached based on the said order, the Court directed that the attachment be lifted in view of the restraint on recovery.
The Court directed the respondent authorities to file an affidavit in opposition within four weeks, with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply within two weeks thereafter. The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing immediately after expiry of the time fixed for exchange of affidavits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
This writ petition assails an adjudication order dated August 11, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017 whereby the petitioner has been found liable to pay tax on several counts.
Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned suffers from several incurable defects.
It is submitted that firstly, the order impugned has been passed on the strength of the Notification No. 56 of 2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs and the corresponding State Notification purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 168A of the said Act of 2017, which are ultra vires the provisions of Section 168A of the said Act of 2017 inasmuch as the same have been issued without there being any force majeure situation which would have justified invocation of the provisions of Section 168A of the said Act of 2017.
It is next submitted that the order impugned has been passed in total derogation of principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) inasmuch as although, the order adversely affects the petitioner, yet, no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner.
Insofar as the petitioner’s delayed approach to Court is concerned Mr. Majumder submits that the petitioner was unaware of the order impugned inasmuch as the said order was not properly served on the petitioner but was only uploaded on the relevant portal under the „Additional Notices and Orders’ tab.
It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the order only when a recovery notice dated November 13, 2025 was served on the petitioner’s bank.
It is submitted that immediately after getting knowledge of the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent State GST Authorities seeks time to file affidavit in opposition to the writ petition.
Since the vires of the Notifications which form the basis of the order impugned has been challenged, the writ petition is entertained.
In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sinhal Vs. State of West Bengal reported at (2025)177 taxman. Com 48(Calcutta) (Paragraph 12) uploading of notice and orders on the portal under the “additional notices and orders tab”, is not construed to be proper service and that being so the petitioner’s belated approach can be said to be well explained. Furthermore, violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act, 2017, vitally affects the validity of the order impugned.
In such view of the matter, a strong arguable case has been made out by the petitioner.
Accordingly, there shall be an interim order restraining the respondent GST Authorities from taking any step to recover any amount from the petitioner on the strength of the impugned adjudication order dated August 11, 2024 (page 40) till disposal of the writ petition.
It is submitted by Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner‟s bank accounts have been attached on the basis of the aforesaid adjudication order. Since the respondent/GST Authorities have been restrained from recovering any amount on the basis of the said adjudication order, the respondent GST Authorities shall lift the attachment.
Let affidavit in opposition to the writ petition be filed within four weeks from date.
Affidavit in reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this matter for further hearing immediately after expiry of the time fixed for exchange of affidavits.
