09.12.2025

DL-07

Ct. No. 551

Srimanta

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

WPA/24188/2025

M/s. Duttcon Consultant and Engineers Private

Limited

-Vs.-

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax,

Shyambazar Charge & Ors.

Mr. Sandip Choraria,

Mr. Akash Chakraborty,

Mr. Rishav Manna

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty,

Ms. Sumita Shaw,

Mr. Saptak Sanyal,

Mr. S. Chatterjee

…for the State.

Heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the material-on-

record.

The petitioner assails the show cause notice in

summary form i.e. Form GST DRC – 01 dated June 13, 2024 as also adjudication order dated July 15, 2024 communicated to the petitioner in summary form i.e. in Form GST DRC – 07 in proceedings under

Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017.

Mr. Choraria, Learned Advocate appearing for

the petitioner submits that the show cause that was issued to the petitioner was only in the summary

form and no details were provided so as to enable the petitioner to respond thereto appropriately. It is further submitted that as the petitioner could not respond to the said show cause notice, the proceedings were concluded ex parte and the adjudication order that was passed was again communicated to the petitioner in summary form, i.e., in Form GST DRC – 07 bereft of the details as mandated by Section 75(6) of the said Act of 2017.

Mr. Choraria further submits that all of these notices and orders were uploaded on the GST Portal under the “additional notices and orders” tab and as such the petitioner could not become aware thereof. It is submitted that since no details whether factual or otherwise were provided either in the notice to show cause or the order passed by the adjudicating authority both are non-est in the eye of law. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as well.

Mr. Chakraborty, Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents/GST Authorities submits that the writ petition should not be entertained inasmuch as it has been filed belatedly.

It is noted that the order impugned was passed on July 15, 2024 and the writ petition has been filed on October 14, 2025. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was unaware of the order and the notices inasmuch as the same were uploaded on the GST portal under the “additional notices and orders” tab and that the petitioner became aware thereof only upon a garnishee notice under Section 79(1)(c) read with Rule 145(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 and WBGST Rules, 2017 respectively being issued to the petitioner’s Bank by the respondent/GST Authorities. This Court has in the case of Sankar Agarwala vs. The Joint Commissioner of CGSt and Central Excise (Appeal), Siliguri appeal Commissionerate & Ors. reported at 2025 (1) TMI 295 Calcutta High Court while relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sinhal vs. State of West Bengal reported at (2025) 177 taxmann.com 48(Calcutta) held that notices and orders served by way of uploading under the “additional notices and orders” tab on the GST portal is improper. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is entertained.

Section 75(6) of the said Act of 2017 mandates that the proper officer shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in the adjudication order that he has to pass. Even otherwise any order passed by any quasi judicial authority (and in most of the cases even administrative authority) must be informed by reason.

In the facts of the present case it is evident that the order that has been passed and communicated to the petitioner has remained in summary form. It is bereft of any detail and sans any reason. Such an order cannot sustain scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that an order without reasons is a nullity more so when the same has civil and evil consequences. Furthermore, it is apparent and evident that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the peti