##PAGE1##

Court No. 551 WPA 14790 of 2025

(266306)

22.12.2025 Boidul Jamal

(AD 25) Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

(S. Banerjee)

Mr. Rishi Raju

Mr. Suvranil Saha

…for the petitioner

Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee

Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty

Mr. Saptak Sanyal

…for the State

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on

record.

2. This writ petition lays challenge to an order dated

May 21, 2025 passed by the appellate authority

under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST

Act, 2017 whereby the petitioner’s appeal against

an order dated January 29, 2024 passed under

Section 73 of the said Act of 2017 has been

dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. Mr. Raju, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner, invites the attention of this Court to the

reply (Annexure P-6 at pages 51 to 56 of the writ

petition) furnished by the petitioner to the notice

to show-cause issued by the appellate authority

asking the petitioner to explain the reasons for the

2

petitioner’s belated approach before the appellate

authority.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Raju that the petitioner

remained unaware about all the notices issued to

the petitioner in respect of the impugned

adjudication proceeding as well as the order,

passed therein inasmuch as same were uploaded

on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices

and Orders” tab. It is submitted that the petitioner

became aware of the order impugned and the

preceding notices only on July 31, 2024, when the

petitioner received an email from the respondent-

GST authorities whereby the petitioner was

reminded that there was an outstanding demand

in terms of the adjudication order dated January

29, 2024 (Annexure P-2 at page 30 of the writ

petition).

5. Relying on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this

Court in case of Sankar Agarwala vs. The Joint

Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

(Appeal), Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate & Ors.,

reported at 2025(11) TMI295-Calcutta High Court,

it is submitted that in a similar situation the Court

had been pleased to set aside the appellate order

as well as the adjudication order and was pleased

3

to give an opportunity to the petitioners to respond

to the show-cause notice within a specified period.

6. Reliance is also placed on another Co-ordinate

Bench judgment of this Court in case of Parakh

Consulting LLP vs. The State of West Bengal (WPA

3 2206 of 2025, decided on November 6, 2025).

7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of the respondents, supports the action of

the respondents-GST Authorities and submits that

the petitioners cannot find fault with uploading of

notices under the “Additional Notices and Orders”

tab once service of notice by uploading the same

on portal, has found statutory recognition.

8. Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the respective parties and considered the material

on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners

have been served with the notices in respect of the

proceeding and the order impugned only by way of

uploading thereof on the relevant GST portal and

not by any other mode. It is the petitioners’ case

that they could get to know of the notices and the

order impugned only after receiving intimation

through mail.

9. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that

the petitioners had due knowledge of the

4

proceedings that had been continued and

concluded against them. Sankar Agarwala (supra)

has elaborately dealt with a similar issue.

10. This Court has no reason to take a different

view. The order impugned herein dated May 21,

2025, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

11. In such view of the matter, the appellate

order impugned herein sated May 21, 2025 is set

aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the

appellate authority for taking a fresh decision on

merits.

12. It has been submitted by Mr. Raju that the

respondent GST authorities have on a similar

issue pertaining to financial year 2020-21 dropped

the demand raised upon the petitioner upon

considering the petitioner’s reply. It is submitted

that the appellate authority may be directed to

take suc