Sonali Roy Vs State of West Bengal & Ors (Calcutta High Court)
GST Pre-Show Cause Notice Not Mandatory Post-Amendment: Calcutta HC High Court clarified that Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/WBGST Rules no longer mandates issuance of DRC 01A notice. Petition challenging Section 73(9) proceedings solely on this ground was dismissed.
Portal Upload of GST Order Validates Service: Calcutta HC emphasized that uploading GST orders and proceedings on the official portal constitutes valid service under Section 169. Writ petition challenging the order without pursuing alternate remedies was dismissed with costs.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sonali Roy, challenging an order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The core issue was the validity of the assessment proceedings where the petitioner claimed to have received communication only through the GST portal, arguing that mandatory notices, including the pre-show cause notice (DRC 01A), were not served personally. The Court ultimately upheld the validity of the proceedings, emphasizing that service via the common portal is a legally recognized and sufficient mode of service under the GST framework.
The Petitioner’s Grounds for Challenge
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Bag, advanced two primary contentions challenging the validity of the proceedings:
1. Non-Service of Pre-Show Cause Notice (DRC 01A): It was argued that the issuance of the main show cause notice under Section 73 without the prior service of the intimation in Form DRC 01A was a fatal procedural flaw. Reliance was placed on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Skyline Automation Industries v. State of U.P.
2. Improper Service of Notice and Order: The petitioner contended that while the entire proceedings and the final order were uploaded on the common portal, they were not served through any other physical notice or via the registered email ID, as contemplated under Section 169 of the Act. The judgment of the Madras High Court in Sakti Steel Trading v. Assistant Comissioner (ST) was cited to support the necessity of email communication.
The respondents countered by arguing that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy (appeal) and that the pre-show cause notice (DRC 01A) was no longer mandatory due to the amendment of Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
