##PAGE1##

23.12.2025

Ct. no.551

Sl.19

Samarpita

W.P.A. 17939 of 2025

MOHAN KUMAR AGARWALA

VS

THE DRPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE,

STATE TAX, RAIGANJ CHARGE AND ORS.

Mr.SandipChoraria,

Mr.AkashChakraborty

… for the petitioner

Mr. TanayChakraborty,

Mr. SaptakSanyal,

Mr. DebrajSahu

… for the State

1. Affidavit-of-Service filed by the petitioner is taken on

record.

2. This writ petition challengesan order dated June 19, 2025,

passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the

WBGST Act, 2017/ CGST Act, 2017(hereafter the said Act

of 2017), whereby, the petitioner’s appeal against an order

dated April 22, 2024 passed under Section 73, of the said

Act of 2017, has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. The petitioner has taken this Court through the

explanation furnished before the appellate authority for

the delay occasioned in preferring the appeal (at page 38

of the writ petition) and submits that the petitioner

remained unaware of the proceedings since the notices

and orders pertaining to the adjudication proceedings

were served upon the petitioner by uploadingthe same on

the GST portal under the “additional notices and

orders”tab. In support of such contention the petitioner’s

2

has annexed screen shots of the relevant tab at pages 27

to 29 of the writ petition. It is further submitted that the

petitioner got to know about the proceedings and the order

only after the petitioner engaged a new accountant, upon

the earlier accountant engaged by the petitioner leaving

the job.

4. The petitioner also relies on a judgement of the Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in case of M/sRam

KumarSinhal– Vs-State of West Bengal

&Ors.dated28.7.2025 and submits that this Court has

held that uploading of notices and orders on the portal

under the additional notices and order tab cannot be

treated as proper service.

5. It is further submitted that an adjudication order has been

passed in gross violation of the principles of natural

justice as well as Section 75(4) and Section 75(6) of the

said Act of 2017.

6. Heard learned counsels appearing for the respective

parties and considered the material on record. It is noticed

that it was not indicated before the appellate authority

that the notices and orders were served upon the

petitioner by uploading the same on the GST portal under

the “additional notices and orders” tab.

7. In such view of the matter, the appellate authority’s order

cannot be totally faulted for not condoning the delay.

However, since the petitioner has placed the screen shots

before this Court indicating that the notices were indeed

served upon the petitioner by uploading the same on the

3

GST portal under the “additional notices and orders”tab

which is not disputed by the respondents, therefore, this

court is of the view that in terms of the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the Case of

M/sRam KumarSinhal(Supra)the same were not served

upon the petitioner properly. In such view of the matter

the delay occasioned by the petitioner in preferring the

appeal before the appellate authority gets explained by the

petitioner’s lack of knowledge. It therefore cannot be said

that the petitioner was grossly negligent or had a

lackadaisical attitude.

8. In view thereof the delay occasioned by the petitioner in

preferring the appeal is condoned and the order impugned

dated June 19,2025 passed by the appellate authority is

set aside.The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to

the file by the appellate authority. The appellate authority

shall now consider the same fresh on merits in accordance

with law. It will be open to the petitioner to take all points

before the appellate authority including the point that the

adjudication order has been passed in palpable violation of

the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the

said Act of 2017.

9. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner that the petitioner’s bank account has been

attached on the strength of the adjudication order dated

November 18, 2024, upon the petitioner’s appea