Calcutta High Court | WPA/4686/2025 | Order dated 24 September 2026
Table of Contents
The Calcutta High Court has quashed and set aside an adjudication order dated 9 December 2025 in Arup Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors., after considering the petitioner’s submissions regarding the opportunity of personal hearing, the manner in which the adjudication order was uploaded on the GST portal, and the absence of separate intimation.
The writ petition was filed challenging, inter alia, the legality and validity of the order dated 09.12.2025, stated in the judgment to have been passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case is recorded as WPA/4686/2025, Arup Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors. in the Calcutta High Court cause lists.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Arup Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors. |
| Case Number | WPA/4686/2025 |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Nature of Proceeding | Writ Petition |
| Order Date | 24 September 2026 |
| Subject | GST adjudication |
| Statutory Provisions Mentioned | Section 73 and Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017 and WBGST Act, 2017 |
| Impugned Order | Adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 |
| Petitioner’s Counsel | Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray |
| Respondents | State of West Bengal & Ors. |
| Outcome | Adjudication order quashed and set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication |
The official Calcutta High Court cause lists independently record the case number and title as WPA/4686/2025 – Arup Dutta vs State of West Bengal and Ors.
Background of the proceedings
The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court challenging, among other matters, the legality and validity of the adjudication order dated 09.12.2025.
Paragraph 2 of the order states that the impugned order had been passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the WBGST Act and the CGST Act, 2017, and records that the petitioner’s appeal had been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The petitioner raised several objections concerning the conduct of the GST proceedings, including the scheduling of personal hearing, the opportunity of hearing after submission of the reply, the uploading of the proceedings on the GST portal, the date on which the petitioner claimed to have become aware of the adjudication order, and an alleged discrepancy concerning the identity of the registered person mentioned in the show-cause notice.
Show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01
According to the submissions recorded in paragraph 3 of the order, a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 04.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner demanding tax, interest and penalty.
The petitioner stated that the notice and the subsequent adjudication order had been uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab.
Personal hearing issue raised before the Court
The petitioner submitted that the date fixed for personal hearing in the show-cause notice was prior to the date fixed for submission of the reply.
According to the petitioner, fixing the personal hearing before the reply date violated the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner further submitted that, after the reply had been submitted, Respondent No. 3 did not provide an opportunity of personal hearing.
The petitioner relied upon Section 75(4) of the GST Act, contending that the absence of such a hearing was contrary to the statutory provision.
Date of reply recorded in the judgment
The order records in paragraph 3(iii) that:
“The petitioner submitted a reply on 04.01.2025.”
The same paragraph of the order records the petitioner’s submission in relation to the reply, while paragraph 3(i) records the show-cause notice as dated 04.06.2025. The two dates, as reproduced in the judgment, are chronologically inconsistent because the recorded reply date precedes the recorded date of the show-cause notice.
This article retains the dates exactly as appearing in the judgment and does not substitute or infer another date.
Allegation of ex-parte adjudication
The petitioner further submitted that the adjudication order had been passed ex parte and uploaded under the “Additional notices and order” tab on the GST portal.
The petitioner stated that the proceedings and the impugned orders were contrary to law and had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without compliance with the procedure prescribed under the GST legislation.
When the petitioner stated that he became aware of the adjudication order
The petitioner submitted that he came to know about the adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 only after receiving a telephone call from the GST Department on 10.07.2026.
The petitioner connected this submission with the fact that the adjudication order had been uploaded under the “Additional notices and order” tab without separate intimation.
Objection concerning identification of the registered person
The petitioner also submitted that the adjudication order suffered from non-application of mind.
According to the submission recorded in paragraph 3(vii), the show-cause notice mentioned the name “Safikul Islam” as the Registered Person (RP), while another person’s name was mentioned elsewhere. The petitioner relied on this discrepancy in challenging the adjudication proceedings.
The judgment records this as a submission made on behalf of the petitioner. It does not record a separate final finding that the naming discrepancy, by itself, established non-application of mind.
State’s response
The State respondents opposed the writ petition.
The counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend his case.
The judgment therefore records the respective positions of the parties: the petitioner alleged that the proceedings had been conducted without the required hearing and procedural compliance, while the State contended that sufficient opportunities had already been provided.
Court’s observations
After hearing the parties and perusing the records made available before it, the Court recorded two observations in paragraph 5.
First, the Court stated that the petitioner had been able to make out a prima facie case.
Second, the Court recorded the fact that the adjudication order had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab and that no separate intimation had been given.
These observations preceded the directions issued by the Court for fresh adjudication.
Section 75(4) and the hearing requirement
Section 75 of the CGST Act and the corresponding WBGST provision deal with general provisions relating to determination of tax.
Sub-section (4) provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a written request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where an adverse decision is contemplated against that person. The corresponding provision is contained in the West Bengal GST legislation.
In the present case, the petitioner relied upon Section 75(4) in contending that no effective personal hearing had been provided after submission of the reply.
Section 73 proceedings
The impugned proceedings were stated in the judgment to have been undertaken under Section 73 of the WBGST Act and the CGST Act, 2017.
The order therefore identifies Sections 73 and 75 of the two GST enactments as the statutory provisions involved in the proceedings. A separate legal-database reproduction of the judgment likewise identifies Section 73 and Section 75 of both Acts.
Court’s operative directions
After recording its observations, the Calcutta High Court issued the following directions.
Adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 quashed
The Court directed that the adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 be quashed and set aside.
Fresh consideration by Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 3 was directed to revisit the issue and consider the petitioner’s reply on merits.
Opportunity of hearing
Respondent No. 3 was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Fresh reasoned adjudication order
After considering the petitioner’s reply and affording the hearing, Respondent No. 3 was directed to pass a fresh reasoned adjudication order in accordance with law.
Twelve-week period
The fresh adjudication order was directed to be passed within 12 weeks from the date of the High Court’s order.
Communication of the decision
The Court further directed that the fresh decision should be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
Disposal of the writ petition
After issuing the above directions, the High Court stated that the writ petition stands disposed of.
No affidavit in opposition
The order contains a specific procedural clarification in paragraph 8.
The Court stated that, since no affidavit in opposition had been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition were deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
Accordingly, the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition should be understood as submissions placed before the Court and not as admissions by the State respondents. The State’s position, as recorded in paragraph 4, was that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend the case.
Certified copy of the order
In paragraph 9, the Court directed that an urgent Photostat certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
What the High Court ordered
The operative part of the order may be summarised as follows:
| Court’s direction | Position |
|---|---|
| Adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 | Quashed and set aside |
| Petitioner’s reply | To be considered on merits |
| Personal hearing | To be afforded |
| Fresh adjudication | Directed |
| Fresh order | To be reasoned and in accordance with law |
| Time allowed | 12 weeks from the date of the order |
| Communication of fresh decision | Within one week thereafter |
| Writ petition | Disposed of |
Complete procedural chronology recorded in the matter
The material presently available records the following sequence:
04.06.2025: The petitioner stated that a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 was issued demanding tax, interest and penalty.
04.01.2025: The judgment records this as the date on which the petitioner submitted a reply. This date appears in the judgment itself and is earlier than the 04.06.2025 date recorded for the DRC-01 notice.
09.12.2025: The adjudication order challenged before the High Court was dated 09.12.2025.
10.07.2026: According to the petitioner’s submission, he became aware of the adjudication order only after receiving a telephone call from the GST Department on this date.
24.09.2026: The Calcutta High Court quashed and set aside the adjudication order and directed fresh adjudication after consideration of the petitioner’s reply and grant of an opportunity of hearing.
27.09.2026: The order dated 24.09.2026 is the latest verified development located for this particular matter as of this reporting date.
Case law referred to in the judgment
The judgment text reproduced in the available record does not cite another judicial precedent by case name in the reasoning or operative portion.
The statutory provisions specifically identified are:
- Section 73, West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- Section 75, West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- Section 73, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- Section 75, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Court’s consideration also expressly refers to the principles of natural justice through the petitioner’s submissions concerning the hearing process.
Distinction between the petitioner’s submissions and the Court’s findings
For purposes of reporting the judgment accurately, the following distinction appears from the order:
Submissions made by the petitioner:
The hearing date was fixed before the reply date; no personal hearing was provided after the reply; the adjudication was ex parte; the order was uploaded under the “Additional notices and order” tab; separate intimation was not given; the petitioner became aware of the order after a departmental telephone call on 10.07.2026; and there was an alleged discrepancy in the identity of the registered person.
Submission made by the State:
The petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend the case.
Court’s observations:
The petitioner had made out a prima facie case, and the adjudication order had been uploaded under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab without separate intimation.
Court’s final directions:
The adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 was quashed and set aside; the matter was directed to be revisited on merits; the petitioner’s reply was to be considered; an opportunity of hearing was to be afforded; and a fresh reasoned order was to be passed within 12 weeks and communicated within one week thereafter.
Position of the GST adjudication after the High Court order
The effect of the High Court’s order is that the adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 no longer remains in force, having been expressly quashed and set aside by the Court.
The dispute was not finally adjudicated by the High Court on the underlying tax, interest or penalty on merits. Instead, the Court directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter on merits after considering the petitioner’s reply and granting an opportunity of hearing.
The fresh adjudication is therefore required to be undertaken in accordance with the directions contained in the High Court’s order.
Significance of the order in the present proceedings
The judgment records that the High Court’s intervention followed its observation that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case and its recording of the fact that the adjudication order had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab without separate intimation.
The order also directs that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before a fresh reasoned adjudication order is passed.
The judgment therefore concludes the particular adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 and requires the matter to be considered afresh by Respondent No. 3 in accordance with the directions issued by the Court.
Current status as on 27 September 2026
As of 27 September 2026, the latest verified order located in Arup Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA/4686/2025, is the Calcutta High Court order dated 24 September 2026.
Under that order:
- the adjudication order dated 09.12.2025 has been quashed and set aside;
- Respondent No. 3 has been directed to reconsider the matter;
- the petitioner’s reply has to be considered on merits;
- an opportunity of hearing has to be provided;
- a fresh reasoned adjudication order has to be passed in accordance with law within 12 weeks; and
- the fresh decision has to be communicated within one week thereafter.
The writ petition itself stands disposed of.
Disclaimer: This article is prepared from information available from publicly accessible internet sources, including official records and published reports, as available on the date of publication. DailyBusinessNews.in is an information-presenting website and does not express any personal opinion, judgment, recommendation, or interpretation. Information is published for general awareness only. Readers are advised to refer to the relevant original/official source for authoritative information. DailyBusinessNews.in is not responsible for any subsequent changes, corrections, omissions, or developments relating to the subject matter.