The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017 does not bar the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. This judgment upholds settled precedent, providing binding authority for GST practitioners and litigants on procedural defects in notice and hearing.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/2002/2025 of BRATIN SIKDER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCJ0047002025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Court No. 2, Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law, GST (tax procedure), principles of natural justice |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked despite alternative remedy under GST Act where gross violation of natural justice is alleged. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reiterated that the existence of a statutory appellate remedy (Section 107 WBGST Act, 2017) does not absolutely bar exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case, the petitioner was not effectively communicated the show-cause notice due to improper uploading on the GST portal, resulting in an ex parte order. The right to respond to notice is fundamental; lack of effective communication violates due process. Consequently, the impugned adjudication order was set aside, and the petitioner was given opportunity to reply and be heard afresh. The decision reinforces the procedural safeguard that parties must receive due notice and participation in tax adjudication. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on the “well-settled” principle that alternative remedy is not a bar when natural justice is violated, and noticed the object behind show-cause notice: to ensure an opportunity for reply and hearing before adjudication. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner, a GST-registered sole proprietorship, was issued a show-cause notice which was only uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ portal tab, thus not effectively communicated. Claiming lack of knowledge, petitioner did not respond, leading to an ex parte adjudication order for tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of denial of an opportunity to be heard. The State argued on appellate remedy availability but did not dispute the technical notice issue. The court found violation of natural justice and set aside the adjudication order, directing a fresh proceeding with proper notice and hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tax tribunals handling similar GST procedural/natural justice violations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that statutory remedies under the GST law do not preclude writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when principles of natural justice are breached.
- Improper communication of show-cause notice on the GST portal (e.g., uploading under a non-standard tab) can amount to a gross violation of natural justice.
- Ex parte tax orders issued without effective communication of notice are vulnerable to being set aside on writ petition.
- The case can be cited as clear authority for GST practitioners seeking to quash adverse adjudication orders on procedural defects in notice or hearing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first recognized the petitioner’s claim of not receiving effective communication of the show-cause notice, as it was uploaded under an “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, not the main portal tab.
- The object of a show-cause notice is to afford the concerned person awareness and an opportunity to respond.
- It is a well-settled law that the presence of an alternative appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, especially where gross violation of principles of natural justice is alleged.
- The State acknowledged that the notice was not uploaded under the usual tab, effectively admitting the procedural lapse.
- The court determined that the absence of effective notice deprived the petitioner of meaningful participation, constituting a violation of natural justice.
- Therefore, the court set aside the ex parte adjudication order and restored the proceedings to the show-cause notice stage, with explicit directions to afford the petitioner an opportunity to reply and for the authority to pass a reasoned order after hearing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Was not aware of the grounds or of the issuance of the show-cause notice as it was not properly uploaded on the normal tab of the GST portal.
- Could not submit a reply due to lack of notice.
- Sought an opportunity to reply and for the authority to decide afresh.
State:
- The impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017; therefore, writ petition should not be entertained.
- Did not dispute that the show-cause notice was not uploaded under the normal tab at the relevant time.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a sole proprietorship registered under the WBGST Act, 2017 and engaged in work contracts business, was served a show-cause notice dated December 18, 2023. The notice was uploaded only under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab of the GST portal, which the petitioner did not access, and thus the petitioner remained unaware and could not reply. Consequently, the adjudicating authority passed an ex parte order demanding tax, interest, and penalty on January 24, 2024. The petitioner challenged this order by writ petition alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of effective notice.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Confers writ jurisdiction on High Courts, which is not absolutely barred by the existence of other remedies where natural justice is breached.
- Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017: Provides a statutory remedy of appeal against adjudication orders, invoked by the State as an alternative remedy.
- The judgment interprets these provisions to clarify that natural justice violations allow writ intervention regardless of statutory appeal mechanism.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court explicitly directed that the petitioner must submit a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks of receiving the server copy of the order.
- Specified that failure to submit the reply within the stipulated time would result in automatic dismissal of the writ petition without further reference.
- Directed the adjudicating authority to give a personal hearing and communicate a reasoned order immediately after adjudication.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and reaffirms the existing law that alternative remedies are not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction in cases of violation of natural justice.