OD-4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/931/2025 SMT. PRITI GUPTA VS THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND EX, HOWRAH AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE Date : 7th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Abdul Hamid Molla, Adv. Mr. Abdul Halim, Adv. Mr. Sahil Hamid, Adv. Mr. Biswadeep Dey, Adv. Mr. Ijaz Ahmed Molla, Adv. …for petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhradip Maity, Adv. …for respondent. The Court: The Writ Petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the legality, validity and sustainability of the Order of Adjudication dated 14.01.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2, the adjudicating authority under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Apropos the facts of the case, a show cause cum demand notice dated 03.04.2024 in Form GSTR DRC-01B was issued upon the petitioner under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The said notice was for the period 01.07.2017 to November 2020 and proposed to assess tax to the tune of Rs. 1,12,66,764/-. 2 The petitioner filed a detailed written reply dated 05.08.2024 before the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority issued three separate notices for personal hearing to the petitioner. On each occasion, the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of non availability of the authorized representative. The authority acceded to the same and refixed the date. After granting three opportunities, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the impugned order ex parte on 14.01.2025. By the said order, the authority confirmed a demand of CGST of Rs. 13,13,282/- and SGST of Rs. 13,13,282/- totaling Rs. 26,26,564/- along with interest under Section 50(1) of the said Act. Recovery was directed under Section 74(9) of the CGST / WBGST Act, 2017. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a detailed reply on 05.08.2024 to the show cause notice. Despite the said reply being on record, the adjudicating authority passed the order ex parte without considering the same. The action of the authority is arbitrary, in excess of jurisdiction and suffers from gross irregularity and perversity. The impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be set aside. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposed the prayer and submits 3 that in terms of the mandate of law, three opportunities of personal hearing were afforded to the petitioner. The allegation that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is therefore incorrect. The adjudicating authority had passed the order in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the materials on records, this court observes as follows: a) A prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference at this stage. b) It is an admitted position that the petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 05.08.2024 to the show cause cum demand notice. c) However, the adjudicating authority, without considering the said reply, proceeded to pass the impugned ex parte order dated 14.01.2025. d) Such an action on the part of the adjudicating authority is contrary to the basic tenets of the principles of natural justice. e) The impugned order, therefore, suffers from infirmity and is vitiated by perversity. Accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. In view of the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; a) The order of adjudication dated 14.01.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. 4 b) The respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the reply dated 05.08.2024 filed by the petitioner. c) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. d) A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed in accordance with law after granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. e) The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. f) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the authority. g) The respondent No 3 shall take an independent decision on merit and shall not be influenced by any of the observations in this order. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitioner stand disposed of without going into the merits of the case. (SMITA DAS DE, J.) gb