Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
Order Date: 5 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Sujit Ghosh, proprietor of M/s. Maa Kamdhenu Enterprise, filed WPA 2346 of 2026 challenging an ex‑parte adjudication order dated 27 March 2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Jalpaiguri (2nd respondent).
- The adjudication order was based on a show‑cause notice that, according to the petitioner, was posted under the "additional notices/orders" tab on the GST portal, which he could not track; no personal hearing date was provided despite a reply deadline of 15 January 2024.
- Respondents argued that several notices had been issued during the audit, but the show‑cause notice was indeed posted under the "additional notices/orders" tab.
- The Court noted that the GSTN provides separate interfaces for taxpayers and tax officers; the officer’s dashboard contains only "Notices" and "Orders" tabs, while the taxpayer’s interface shows "Additional Notices/Orders". The officer cannot control the tabulation, and the GSTN is unaware of any technical glitch.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for the ex‑parte adjudication because he was under a bona‑fide impression that no notice or order existed against him and he was denied an opportunity of hearing.
- The adjudication order dated 27 March 2024 is quashed/set aside.
- The 2nd respondent may issue a fresh notice for adjudication within one month from the communication of this order.
- No order as to costs; allegations in the writ petition are deemed not admitted.
- Parties may obtain a certified website copy of the order upon compliance with requisite formalities.
Topics: GST, Judicial Relief