Rafiqul Hasan Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
In Rafiqul Hasan Vs State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court considered a challenge arising from GST adjudication proceedings for the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner had been served with a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 19 December 2023. The notice required a reply by 19 January 2024 and fixed personal hearing for 11 January 2024.
Although the petitioner admittedly did not file the written reply by 19 January 2024, his representative appeared on 11 January 2024 and placed the petitioner’s case before the authorities. The petitioner subsequently filed his reply on 9 March 2024 and sent it by Speed Post to the respondents on 11 March 2024. The adjudication order under Section 73 was passed on 20 March 2024.
The petitioner challenged the adjudication order in appeal on 3 December 2024. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by order dated 27 January 2025. Before the High Court, the petitioner relied upon Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and contended that an opportunity of personal hearing was required before an adverse order could be passed.
The respondents opposed the petitioner’s contention. Their counsel submitted that there was no occasion to provide another personal hearing because a hearing had already taken place on 11 January 2024, when, according to the respondents, the petitioner had refused to provide any further written objection to the show-cause notice. The respondents also contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Tribunal against the appellate order and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable.
The High Court, however, noticed an apparent discrepancy in the adjudication order. Two dates appeared in the order—20 March 2024 and 19 December 2023—and the annexure to the order was also dated 19 December 2023. On that basis, the Court found that a suspicion arose as to whether the authorities had considered the petitioner’s reply dated 9 March 2024 before passing the adjudication order.
The Court observed that once the petitioner had filed the reply to the show-cause notice, and the respondent authorities contemplated passing an adverse order, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing on that reply. The petitioner had also drawn the Court’s attention to an additional notice tab that was available to him in circumstances where an opportunity of personal hearing was not provided.
The High Court consequently granted the petitioner another opportunity of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. The relief was made conditional upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax, in addition to the alleged 10% tax already recovered and the 10% deposited for preferring the appeal.
The respondents were directed to pass the adjudicating order after giving the petitioner a personal hearing within four weeks from the date of communication of the Court’s order. The Court further directed that if the petitioner failed to cooperate with the respondent authorities in participating in the personal hearing, the original adjudicating order would revive.
The writ petition, W.P.A. 10412 of 2025, was accordingly disposed of without an order as to costs.
Please note A subsequent correction order records corrections to the order dated 21 August 2026. It specifies that the reference to “Section 73” in paragraph 1 is to be read as “Section 73 of WBGST Act/CGST Act, 2017”; the appeal date is to be read as 3 December 2024; and the date referred to in paragraph 3 is to be read as 20 March 2024 instead of 19 December 2023. It also directs insertion of a paragraph expressly providing that the adjudication order dated 20 March 2024 and the appellate order dated 27 January 2025 are set aside. The correction order states that the remaining portions of the order remain unaltered.
Applicant by:- Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray,
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC — 01 on 19th December, 2023 for the financial year 2018-2019. The said show-cause notice required the petitioner to give a reply to the same by 19th January, 2024. The petitioner was also given date for personal hearing on 11th January, 2024. The petitioner admittedly could not give the reply to the show-cause notice by 19th January, 2024, as stipulated in the show-cause notice, however, on 11th January, 2024, the representative of the petitioner appeared and placed its case before the authorities. The petitioner thereafter filed its reply to the show-cause on 9th March, 2024, which was sent by Speed Post to the respondents on 11th March, 2024. The respondents passed their adjudication order under Section 73 on 20th March, 2024.
2. It appears from the said order that two dates are mentioned in the order, which are 20th March, 2024 and 19th December, 2023. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 3’d December, 20242 against the adjudicating order and an order was passed in the appeal on 27th January, 2025 rejecting the appeal. The petitioner relied on Section 75(4), in support of his contention, that before passing an adverse order against the petitioner it was incumbent on the adjudicating authorities to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The respondents have appeared and the learned counsel has submitted that there is no scope for giving further personal hearing to the petitioner when once such hearing has already been on 11th January, 2024 when, the petitioner allegedly refused to give any further written objection to the show-cause notice. The said fact would appear from the order dated 19th December, 2023.
3. After hearing learned advocates for both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the suspicion arises in the mind of this Court when in the adjudicating order, there are two dates are appearing one 20th March, 2024 and another on 19th December, 2023. The annexure to the said order is also dated 19th December, 2023. Therefore, it can be presumed that while passing the order under Section 73 on 19th December, 2023, the respondents did not have the occasion to consider the reply of the petitioner given on 9th March, 2024. Therefore, it is also noted that after the reply to the show-cause notice was filed by the petitioner, if the respondent authorities contemplated to pass an adverse order against the petitioner, they ought to have given an opportunity of hearing on the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to an additional notice tab, which was available to the petitioner, in the event, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing.
4. The respondents disputes the claim of the petitioner and submitted additional notice tab are only available in the event, an assessee is deprived of any right to reply or under special circumstances, which in the present case, is not established by the petitioner. She also submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Tribunal against the appellate order and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
5. After hearing the parties, this Court finds it necessary to allow the petitioner another opportunity of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax in addition to the alleged 10% tax has already been recovered and the 10% that was deposited for preferring the appeal.
6. The respondents are directed to pass the adjudicating order after giving the personal hearing to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of this order by the petitioner.
7. In the event, the petitioner does not cooperate with the respondent authorities in participating in the personal hearing, thereafter the original adjudicating order shall revive.
8. Accordingly, W.P.A. 10412 of 2025 is disposed of.
9. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
Text of the Subsequent correction order
1. This Court disposed of the instant writ application on 21st August, 2026.
2. The petitioner and the respondents are represented.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that the following changes ought to be incorporated in the order dated 21st August, 2026 which are as follows:
i. In the last line of Paragraph No. 1 of said order, “Section 73” be read as “Section 73 of WBGST Act/CGST Act, 2017”;
ii. In the fourth line of Paragraph No.2 of the said order, the year of preferring the appeal by the petitioner is stated to be “3rd December, 20242″. It should be “3rd December, 2024″;
iii. In the eighth line of Paragraph No. 3 of the said order, the date “19th December, 2023” be read as “20th March, 2024”; and
iv. At page 4 of the said order, the following paragraph be inserted as Paragraph No. 8.
“The adjudication order dated 20th March, 2024 and the appellate order dated 27th January, 2025 are hereby set aside.”
and the Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 as recorded in the order dated 21st August, 2026 be renumbered as Paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 respectively.
4. These corrections in the order dated 21st August, 2026 are being made in presence of the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents and on consent of the parties.
5. Department will incorporate such corrections in the order dated 21St August, 2026.
6. All other portions of the order dated 21st August, 2026 shall remain unaltered.
