Kulik Plywood Private Limited & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The petition challenged the adjudication order dated 14.08.2024 and appellate order dated 19.12.2025 under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners submitted that the show cause notice in Form DRC 01 dated 13.05.2024 had been uploaded only under the GST portal’s “Additional Notice and Orders” tab, due to which they failed to respond within time and came to know of the adjudication order only on 22.08.2025. Their appeal was thereafter dismissed on limitation. The State opposed the petition, submitting that adequate opportunities had been granted. The Calcutta High Court found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and that uploading the notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, resulted in violation of natural justice. Since the appeal had been dismissed solely on limitation and not on merits, the Court quashed and set aside the appellate order, directed the appellate authority to admit and consider the appeal on merits, and required a hearing and fresh reasoned order within 12 weeks.
Challenge to Adjudication and Appellate Orders
The petitioners challenged, inter alia, the legality and validity of the adjudication order dated 14.08.2024 passed by respondent No.4 and the appellate order dated 19.12.2025 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on the ground of limitation.
The petitioners contended that the proceedings and impugned order were contrary to law, violated the principles of natural justice and did not comply with the procedure prescribed under the applicable GST enactments.
TaxGuru’s existing publication on Appeals & Revision under GST provides related material concerning the appellate mechanism under Section 107.
Petitioners’ Submissions
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a show cause notice in Form DRC 01 dated 13.05.2024 had been issued demanding tax, interest and penalty.
According to the petitioners, the notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders”. The petitioners therefore submitted their response after the due date.
The petitioners further submitted that they came to know of the adjudication order dated 14.08.2024 only on 22.08.2025 while checking the portal. They thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107, but the appeal was dismissed solely on limitation without consideration of the merits.
State Respondents’ Submissions
Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents opposed the writ petition. It was submitted that the petitioners had been granted ample opportunities to defend their case and that the appeal had therefore been rightly dismissed on limitation.
Calcutta High Court’s Findings
After hearing the parties and perusing the records made available, the Court observed that the petitioners had been able to make out a prima facie case.
The Court specifically noted that the show cause notice had been uploaded only under the “Additional Tab Notice and Orders” and that no separate intimation had been given in relation to it. The Court found that, as a consequence, the petitioners were unable to reply to the notice.
The Court held that this constituted a violation of natural justice.
Appellate Order Set Aside
The Court noted that the petitioners’ appeal had been dismissed by the appellate authority only on the ground of limitation and had not been considered on merits.
Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court held that interference was warranted in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 19.12.2025 was quashed and set aside.
Directions for Fresh Consideration
The Court directed respondent No.3 to revisit the issue by admitting the appeal preferred by the petitioners and considering the appeal on merits.
Respondent No.3 was further directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of the order. The decision was directed to be communicated to the petitioners within one week thereafter.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
The Court also recorded that, since no affidavit in opposition had been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition were deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
Assessee Is Represented By: Advocate Himangshu Kumar Ray
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the legality and validity of the adjudication order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 and the appellate order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the said WBGST Act’) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the said `CGST Act’), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on ground of limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as follows;
i. That a show cause notice in Form DRC 01 dated 13.05.2024 has been issued to the petitioners demanding tax, interest and penalty.
ii. That said notice has been uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Orders’. Due to this, the petitioners submitted response after due date.
iii. That the petitioners came to know of the order of adjudication dated 14.08.2024 only on 22.08.2025 at the time of checking the portal.
iv. That the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act but the same has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits.
v. That the entire proceedings and the impugned order are contrary to law and have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted, since the petitioners has been granted ample opportunities to defend his case, the appeal has been rightly dismissed on limitation.
5. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records made available this Court observes as follows;
i. The petitioners have been able to make a prima facie case.
ii. The fact that show cause notice has been only uploaded under the ‘Additional Tab Notice and Orders’ and no separate intimation has been given therefore, the petitioners have been unable to reply to the same. This constitutes a violation of natural justice.
6. Since the petitioners appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority only on the ground of limitation and not on merits, considering the peculiar facts of the case, interference by this Court is warranted in ends of justice.
7. In view of the above this Court directs as follows:
a. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.12.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
b. Respondent no.3 is directed to revisit the issue by admitting the appeal preferred by the petitioners and consider the appeal on merits.
c. Respondent no.3 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from date. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioners within a week thereafter.
8. With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
9. Since no affidavit in opposition has been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
