25.08.2025 sayandeep

Ct.5.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 5013 of 2025

Sonali Roy

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Pranit Bag

Mr. Abhik Chitta Kundu

… For the petitioner

Mr. A. Roy, Ld. GP Mr. T. Chakraborty

Mr. S. Sanyal

Mr. D. Sahu

… For the State

1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is

taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia,

challenging an order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter

referred to as the “said Act”).

3. Mr. Bag, learned advocate appearing in support of

the writ petition has submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner was not served with the pre-show cause notice in form DRC 01A. According to him, without service of notice in form DRC 01A, no show-cause notice under Section 73 could have been issued. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Skyline

Automation Industries v. State of U.P. reported in [2023]146 taxmann.com 159(Allahabad). He next points out that in the instant case, not only the order impugned but the entire proceedings was uploaded on the portal. At no stage, the petitioner was served with any other notice or email communication, as contemplated under Section 169 of the said Act. In support of his aforesaid contention that in absence of service of notice at the petitioner’s registered e-mail Id, an order passed under Section 73(9) cannot be enforced, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Sakti Steel Trading v. Assistant Comissioner (ST), reported in [2024]159 taxmann.com 233(Madras). He would next submit that the notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act had also been uploaded under the head “view additional Notices on orders”. Unfortunately, the aforesaid submission is not supported by any statement made by the petitioner and having regard thereto, I am not inclined to consider the judgment relied on by Mr. Bag in the case of St. Xaviers College Calcutta Alumni Association v. Dy. Commissioner of Revenue CGST, reported in [2025]173 taxmann.com 417 (Calcutta), on the above issue.

4. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal. The petitioner should not be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner was served with the notice of proceedings under Section 73 of the said Act on the portal.

5. Mr. Sanyal, would, further, submit that the pre-

show cause notice in the form DRC 01A is no longer mandatory having regard to the amended provisions of Rule 142(1A) of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) According to him, no interference is called for.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I notice that in the instant case, on the petitioner’s own showing as pleaded in paragraph 9 of the petition, the petitioner claims that the order impugned including the proceedings preceding such order were uploaded on the portal. In this context, I find that the Act recognizes the manner in which the notice and order of the proceedings shall be served on a registered tax payer. To morefully appreciate the same, the provisions of Section 169 of the said Act are extracted herein below:

“169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.—(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:—

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable pers