Case Law Details
Maya Store & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The writ petition challenged an Order-in-Original dated December 14, 2023, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, despite having adverse consequences.
Upon calling for a report from the CGST authorities, an affidavit was filed stating that no physical letter for personal hearing had been issued. It was claimed that a date for personal hearing had been provided online through the ACES-GST Application available in the CITRIX Appstore. However, it was further disclosed that from June 2025 onwards the application had been withdrawn and no record, proof, or screenshot of any such online notice was available.
The Court observed that there was nothing on record to conclusively establish that notice of hearing had been served upon the petitioners. Under Section 75(4) of the Act, grant of opportunity of hearing is mandatory where an order with adverse consequences is contemplated. Since it was not proved to the Court’s satisfaction that such opportunity was granted, the impugned order was held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4).
On this ground alone, the adjudication order dated December 14, 2023 was set aside and the matter remitted to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. The petitioners were granted two weeks to file replies to the show cause notice already issued. The Proper Officer was directed to pass appropriate orders after considering such replies and to grant opportunity of hearing if any adverse order is contemplated.
The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and left all issues open for adjudication. It was also directed that if the petitioners failed to file replies within two weeks, their right to reply would stand closed. The petitioners were further restrained from challenging the fresh adjudication proceedings on the ground of limitation unless such ground was available at the time of issuance of the show cause notice. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition assails an order in original dated December 14, 2023 (for the tax period July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018) passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereafter the ‘said Act, of 2017’).
2. It is the petitioners’ case that the order in original has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner although the order has adverse consequences on the petitioners.
3. In such view of the matter, a report in the form of affidavit was called for, from the respondent CGST Authorities. Such report has been filed by Mr. Bhattacharjee in court today. The same is taken on record.
4. The said report reveals that no physical letter calling upon the petitioners for personal hearing was ever given to the petitioners. The report however records that the petitioners were given a date of personal hearing “online through ACES-GST Application available in CITRIX APPSTORE”.
5. The report further states that from June, 2025 onwards the aforesaid application has been withdrawn and as such there is no record or proof or screenshot of any such online notice having been given to the petitioner.
6. In such view of the matter, there is nothing before this court to come to the definite conclusion that any notice was indeed served upon the petitioners thereby affording them an opportunity of hearing.
7. In terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017, if an order having adverse consequence is contemplated, grant of an opportunity of hearing is mandatory.
8. Since it has not been proved before this Court, to any decree of satisfaction, that the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned decision being taken, therefore the said decision falls foul of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017 which grant statutory recognition to such principles.
9. On such ground alone, the adjudication order dated December 14, 2023 stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. The petitioner’s shall have two weeks’ time from date to file their reply(ies) to the notice to show cause already issued to the petitioners. The Proper Officer shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law upon taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners, if any.
10. It is made clear that if the petitioners’ do not file any reply within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the petitioners’ right to file reply to the notice to show cause shall stand closed. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall be granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) if any adverse orders is contemplated against the petitioners.
11. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be decided by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.
12. The petitioner shall not be entitled to question the adjudication proceedings conducted by the Proper Officer in terms of this order on the ground of limitation unless such ground was available to the petitioner at the time when the notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner.
13. WPA 19924 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
Author Bio
