The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ramkrishna Banerjee v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Srirampur Charge & Ors. [WPA 28002 of 2025, order dated February 17, 2026] held that uploading notices and orders on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab cannot be construed as proper service and violation of the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act renders the adjudication order susceptible to challenge. The Court granted interim protection restraining recovery and directed lifting of bank attachment pending disposal of the writ petition.
Facts:
Ramkrishna Banerjee (“the Petitioner”) challenged an adjudication order dated August 11, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017, whereby the authorities held the petitioner liable to pay tax on several counts.
The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Srirampur Charge & Ors. (“the Respondent”) passed the impugned adjudication order relying upon Notification No. 56/2023–Central Tax dated December 28, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and the corresponding State Notification under Section 168A of the GST Act.
The Petitioner contended that the impugned order suffered from several incurable defects, particularly that the notifications relied upon were ultra vires Section 168A of the GST Act since they were issued without any force majeure situation justifying invocation of that provision.
It was further contended that the order was passed in total derogation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Section 75(4) as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner even though the order adversely affected the petitioner.
The Respondent contended that time should be granted to file an affidavit in opposition to the writ petition.
The Petitioner’s grievance was that the adjudication order had not been properly served upon him and was merely uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, due to which he remained unaware of the order. The petitioner came to know of the order only when a recovery notice dated November 13, 2025 was served upon his bank. Consequently, the Petitioner approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the adjudication order and the notifications relied upon therein.
Issue:
Whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab constitutes proper service and whether violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act vitiates the adjudication order.
Held:
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WPA 28002 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, since the vires of the notifications forming the basis of the impugned order had been challenged, the writ petition was entertained.
- Observed that, since the order had not been properly served upon the petitioner, the petitioner’s delayed approach to the Court stood sufficiently explained.
- Noted that, violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, which mandates an opportunity of hearing, vitally affects the validity of the impugned order.
- Observed that, in view of the above circumstances, a strong arguable case had been made out by the petitioner.
- Accordingly directed that, there shall be an interim order restraining the respondent GST authorities from taking any step to recover any amount from the petitioner on the strength of the adjudication order dated August 11, 2024 till disposal of the writ petition.
- Further directed that, since the Petitioner’s bank accounts had been attached on the basis of the adjudication order, and recovery had been stayed, the GST authorities shall lift the attachment of the Petitioner’s bank accounts.
Our Comments:
The Division Bench judgment in Ram Kumar Sinhal v. State of West Bengal [(2025) 177 Taxman 48 (Cal)] held that uploading notices or orders on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab does not amount to proper service, since such placement may not reasonably bring the order to the notice of the assessee. The Court reasoned that service under Section 169 of the GST Act must be effected in a manner reasonably ensuring that the taxpayer becomes aware of the order or notice, failing which the principles of natural justice are violated. The reasoning in the present case aligns with the ratio of the Division Bench judgment, and the Court followed the same interpretation to conclude that the petitioner’s delayed approach was justified.
The Court also noted violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates grant of an opportunity of hearing where a request is made or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The order impugned having been passed without granting such opportunity, the Court observed that such violation vitally affects the validity of the order.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
“73. Determination of tax, pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts.-
(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.
(3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.
…”
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
“75. General provisions relating to determination of tax.-
(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”
Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017.
“168A. Power of Government to extend time limit in special circumstances.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, extend the time limit specified in, or prescribed or notified under, this Act in respect of actions which cannot be completed or complied with due to force majeure.
(2) The power to issue notification under sub-section (1) shall include the power to give retrospective effect to such notification from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, the expression “force majeure” means a case of war, epidemic, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature or otherwise affecting the implementation of any of the provisions of this Act.”
Notification No. 56/2023 – Central Tax dated December 28, 2023
“S.O…..(E).– In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), and section 21 of the Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017) and in partial modification of the notifications of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated the 3rd April, 2020 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 235(E), dated the 3rd April, 2020 and No. 14/2021-Central Tax, dated the 1st May, 2021 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 310(E), dated the 1st May, 2021 and No. 13/2022-Central Tax, dated the 5th July, 2022, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 516(E), dated the 5th July, 2022, and No. 09/2023-Central Tax, dated the 31st March, 2023 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number G.S.R. 1564(E) dated the 31st March, 2023, the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby, extends the time limit specified under sub- section (10) of section 73 for issuance of order under sub-section (9) of section 73 of the said Act, for recovery of tax not paid or short paid or of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized, relating to the period as specified below, namely:–
[i] for the financial year 2018-19, up to the 30th day of April, 2024;
[ii] for the financial year 2019-20, up to the 31st day of August, 2024.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
