Calcutta High Court
WPA/12333/2026 of BIDYABATI DEVI JAISWAL Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE TAX, HOWRAH AND KADAMTALA CHARGE AND ORS. on 24 September 2026
No.10 AGM WPA 12333 of 2026 Bidyabati Devi Jaiswal vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge & Ors. Mr. Abhijat Das. Mr. Anirban Chatterjee. Ms. Anwesha Chakraborty. ….for the petitioner Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Niladri Saha.
24.09.26
Ct. No.10
AGM
WPA 12333 of 2026
Bidyabati Devi Jaiswal
vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge & Ors.
Mr. Abhijat Das.
Mr. Anirban Chatterjee.
Ms. Anwesha Chakraborty.
….for the petitioner
Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta. Ld. A.G.P.
Mr. Niladri Saha.
….for the State-respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25.2.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘WBGST Act’) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the said ‘CGST Act’).
3. The petitioner submits that as per the impugned order, it has been alleged that a notice in Form DRC01 has been issued to registered tax payer vide reference ZD 191124053114H dated 27.11.2024 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest and penalty.
4. The petitioner contends that the said notice and the subsequent proceedings are contrary to law and have been passed without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017.
5. The petitioner states that the intimation was merely uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ as a result of which the petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice issued by the respondent authority properly.
6. The petitioner submits that only at the time of filing the return, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner with regard to the issuance of the adjudication order dated 25.02.2025.
7. Having heard the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply to the same, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to do so.
8. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of four weeks from date, for the financial year 2020-21. The respondent authority shall consider the same within a period of eight weeks, upon affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate such decision within a week thereafter. Accordingly, the adjudication order dated 25.02.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
10. Since the affidavit has not been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Smita Das De, J.)