Natural justice mandates an adequate opportunity for hearings; failure to do so renders an order void.

Heard On : 07.7.2025 Order On : 07.07.2025 Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated December 13, 2023 passed under Section 73 (9) of the CGST 2017 and WBGST 2017 (thereafter said Act of 2017) by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Jalpaiguri Charge.

3. Mr. Lakhotia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is a nullity inasmuch as the same has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He invites the attention of this Court to the summary of show-cause notice dated September 27, 2023 and points out that under the caption “Details of personal hearing and due date to file reply”, the slabs meant for indicating the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue where hearing would be held, have been filled up by mentioning “NA”. He then takes the court to the show- cause notice issued under Section 73 (9) of the said Act of 2017 as well as the Reminder in respect of the show-cause notices where again, the slabs where date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing were to be mentioned have been similarly filled up by mentioning “NA”.

4. Inviting the attention of this Court to the print out of the screen short of the relevant GST portal, he submits that the aforesaid show-cause notices and the order impugned were uploaded under the tab/head “Additional notices and other”, which were not noticed by the petitioner. It is submitted that since the notices required the petitioner to show-cause and the order was one of adjudication, the same ought to have been uploaded under the main heading “Notices and Orders” and uploading thereof under some other tab led to defiance of attention and notice of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Lakhotia further invites the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of the of Goutam Bhowmick Vs. State of West Bengal reported at 2024 158 taxmann.com399(Cal) and submits that in a somewhat similar fact situation the Hon’ble Division Bench had been pleased to set aside the order passed under Section 73 (9)

of the said Act.

6. As regards the submission that uploading of the notices and orders under the “Additional notices and other tab has bred confusion and has led to escapement of notice, Mr. Lakhotia relies on the following judgments.

“1. Ishan Snax Private Limited versus Assistant Commissioner of Revenue , Siliguri Charge & Ors. in WPA 1517 of 2024 in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

2. Mahadev Industries versus Union of India reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 756 (Delhi), 3. Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. versus Sales Tax Officer reported in [2025] 173 taxmann.com

419 (Gujarat)

4. Surya Resmi Traders versus State Tax Officer reported in[2025] 173 taxmann.com

644 (Kerala)

5.Tvl. Sri Renkanna Steels versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai reported in[2024] 165 taxmann.com 727 (Madras)

6. St. Xaviers College Calcutta Alumni Association Vs Dy Commissioner Of Revenue Cgst And Ors in WPO 559 Of 2024 In The Hon’ble High Court At Calcutta Original Side

7. Sukumar Kundu versus Union of India & Ors. inWPA 12124 of 2024 in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta

8. Krishna Sales versus Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax reported in[2025]

174 taxmann.com 662 (Delhi)

9. Unique Computer & Communication Shop versus State of U.P. reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 119 (Allahabad).”

7. Ms. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that order has been validly pa