An order assessing tax cannot be sustained if the proper officer denies an effective opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the WBGST Act, 2017.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated May 27, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, B.I. (North Bengal), Alipurduar Zone, Alipurduar.

2. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of works contract. The petitioner is registered under the WEST BENGAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 (in short WBGST Act, 2017). A show-cause notice dated March 21, 2022 was issued by the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax authority asking the petitioner to show- cause as to why the petitioner should not pay the amount as indicated in the said show-cause notice. Petitioner claims to have replied to the said show-cause notice and the concerned Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice by the impugned order.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. He submits that when an adverse order is contemplated against a person an opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to such person.

4. Ms. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the order impugned is an appealable order under the provisions of Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017. She further submits that the order impugned was passed sometimes in the month of May, 2022 and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone.

5. In reply, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” Tab and the petitioner only came to know of the order on August 30, 2025. He, thus, submits that there has been no delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court. He further submits that since there has been violation of the principles of natural justice the petitioner has approached the Writ Court instead of availing the appellate remedy under the Act.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

7. With regard to the objection raised by Ms. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the State that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, this Court finds that it is the specific case made out in the writ petition that the order impugned was uploaded in the “Additional Notices and Orders” Tab. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order was not uploaded in the normal Tab. The petitioner claims that he came to know of the said order from the “Additional Notices and Orders” Tab only on August 30, 2025 and the writ petition has been filed immediately thereafter i.e. on September 8, 2025.

8. It is well-settled that the period of limitation for challenging an order shall start to run with effect from the date of communication of the said order.

9. The question that arises for consideration is which date should be taken to be the starting point of limitation in a case of this nature.

10. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Ram Kumar Sinhal vs. State of West Bengal , reported at [2025] 177 taxman.com 48 (Calcutta) held that the accessibility of the notice only under the Additional Tab, as opposed to the Normal Tab, could not constitute a proper communication or uploading as contemplated in Section 73 (1) of the WBGST Act, read with the concerned Rules.

11. It is not the case of the rev