GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

"The fact that show cause notice and adjudication order had been uploaded only under the ‘tab Additional Notice and Orders’ and no separate intimation had been given, therefore, the petitioner was unable to reply to the same. This constitutes a violation of natural justice." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated Sep  2026, held that the practice of uploading show cause notices and adjudication orders exclusively under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal, without providing separate intimation to the assessee, violates the principles of natural justice. A bench presided by Justice Smita Das De emphasized that such procedural lapses effectively preclude an assessee from filing timely replies or appeals, thereby necessitating judicial intervention.

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Dutta, challenged the adjudication order dated 23 August 2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 28 January 2026, which had dismissed his appeal solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that he remained unaware of the proceedings until receiving a telephone call from the department in January 2026, as the notice had been uploaded to the portal without corresponding notification. The State, however, argued that the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunity and that the dismissal on the grounds of limitation was legally sound.

The primary issue before the court was whether the failure to provide specific intimation of a show cause notice beyond a portal upload constitutes a violation of natural justice. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether an appellate order dismissing an appeal on the grounds of limitation should be set aside when the initial order was passed without proper service of notice to the assessee.

The court observed that the mechanical reliance on the GST portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab is insufficient when such a practice results in a total lack of actual knowledge on the part of the taxpayer. By failing to ensure that the assessee was sufficiently informed of the proceedings initiated against him, the authorities deprived the petitioner of his right to defend his interests.

Requirement of Effective Service

The court highlighted that procedural mandates under the WBGST Act and CGST Act must be interpreted in a manner that protects the substantive rights of the taxpayer. The bench remarked that where an assessee is unaware of the adjudication process due to a lack of communication, the subsequent dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation becomes an exercise in technicality that defeats the ends of justice.

Court Directs Re-adjudication on Merits

Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 28 January 2026. The appellate authority was directed to admit the petitioner's appeal and consider the matter on its merits. The court further mandated that the petitioner be granted an opportunity of hearing and that a fresh, reasoned order be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order.

Ensuring Compliance with Natural Justice

The court's decision serves as a stern reminder to tax authorities that the digitisation of tax proceedings does not absolve the department of its obligation to ensure that the principles of natural justice are upheld. By focusing on the necessity of effective service, the High Court has ensured that administrative convenience does not override the fundamental right of a taxpayer to be heard.

Date of Decision: 7 Sep  2026