Case Details
Case Title: Naina Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Chandni Chawk & Princep Street Charge & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: WPA 3186 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 16.06.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73(1), Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017
Category: Demand under Section 73 (Natural Justice / Hearing Opportunity)
Facts (Paras 1–7)
The petitioner challenged an order dated 2nd December 2023 under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act for April–August 2020. A show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 25th April 2024, accompanied by a personal hearing date. The petitioner argued that fixing the hearing simultaneously with the show cause demonstrated pre-determination. Reliance was placed on Section 75(4) and the Chhattisgarh High Court ruling in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. UOI (2024). The petitioner also contended that notices were uploaded in the “additional notices and orders” section of the GST portal, leading to non-response until a new accountant discovered them in January 2025.
Questions / Dispute (Paras 2–5, 8)
-
Does issuance of a show cause notice with a pre-fixed personal hearing date prove that the officer had pre-decided the matter?
-
Can such a notice be treated as violative of natural justice under Section 75(4)?
-
Whether uploading in “additional notices and orders” without petitioner’s knowledge vitiated proceedings?
Observations (Paras 6–11)
The Court noted that the petitioner was served with pre-show cause DRC-01A (19.12.2023) before the show cause notice. The order was not passed abruptly; hence, the plea of ignorance was not accepted. Interpreting Section 75(4), the Court explained that the term “contemplate” merely means “consider probable” and does not imply a pre-determined mind. Since the personal hearing was afforded after the reply date, no irregularity existed. The Mahindra & Mahindra case did not apply, as in that case the hearing was fixed before the reply due date. The petitioner, by not availing the hearing, could not later allege breach of natural justice.
Judgment (Paras 12–13)
The Court refused to interfere with the order under Section 73 in its writ jurisdiction. However, to prevent the petitioner from being remediless, it granted liberty to file an appeal within four weeks. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal on merits subject to statutory compliance.
Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Date | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. UOI (WA 172/2024) | Chhattisgarh High Court | 10.04.2024 | Held that granting hearing before reply due date suggests violation of procedure; distinguished in present case. |
Between Fine Lines
For trade and taxpayers, the ruling clarifies that simply mentioning a hearing date along with the show cause does not mean bias. What matters is whether the hearing was actually held after considering the reply. Taxpayers must remain vigilant on the GST portal’s “additional notices and orders” tab, as lack of portal monitoring cannot be pleaded to escape liability.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
