Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 5233 of 2025

Baazar Style Retail Limited

versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Shraff

Mr. Dev Kumar Agarwal Ms. Swarnwarshi Poddar

For the State : Mr. A. Roy, GP

Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty

Mr. S. Sanyal

Heard on : 10.09.2025. Judgment on : 10.09.2025

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the

show cause notice dated 8th March, 2021 issued under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said

Act”) for the tax period 2017-18.

2. It is the petitioner’s grievance that along with show-cause notice

issued under Section 74 of the said Act, no details of the show

cause had been served.

3. The show cause was adjudicated and ultimately culminated in the

adjudication order dated 4th January, 2025.

4. Mr. Shraff, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid adjudication order is a consequential order. Since, the show cause notice itself is defective, the order also cannot be sustained. In any event, it is submitted that the aforesaid show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the said Act is not only defective but the same cannot be considered to be a notice within a meaning of Section 74(1) of the said Act.

5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. Pursuant to the order dated 1st September, 2025, he has placed before this Court the instruction sheet and has acknowledged the fact that along with show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the said Act no specific details pertaining to the amount payable has been disclosed to the petitioner. Notwithstanding the above, he would submit that admittedly, the petitioner did not raise the aforesaid issue at the time of hearing of the show cause. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings. According to him, the petitioner had waived his right. As such, no interference is called for. Alternatively, he submits that this Court may grant liberty to the respondents to serve the statement in support of the show-cause.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case a show cause notice has been served on the petitioner under the provisions of Section 74(1) of the said Act. It is true that a statement specifying the details of the amount payable has not been disclosed to the petitioner. Although, it is pointed out by Mr. Shraff, having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 142(1)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”), the respondents were obliged to supply the petitioner the details of the amount payable and in absence of the details, the petitioner could not have appropriately responded to the show cause, I find that the aforesaid issue may not come up for consideration as the petitioner had never raised this point contemporaneously while responding to the show-cause. The petitioner had in fact duly responded to the show cause. I find from the response appearing at page 70 of the writ petition that a detailed response to the show cause had been furnished by the petitioner on the merits of the show-cause. Having regard thereto, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been denied the opportunity to appropriately understand the show cause and accordingly respond to the same. The petitioner has categorically responded identifying the diverse facts. From the aforesaid response it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the show cause or was not able to appropriately respond to the same.

7. Although, Mr. Shraff, learned advocate representing the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. EX. Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., reported in