Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 7572 of 2026 Savera Vinimay Private Limited & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Mr. Subhasis Podder Ms. Shiwani Shaw Mr. Animitra Roy Mr. Rantu Bose For the State : Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. AGP Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Heard on : 08.07.2026 Judgment on : 08.07.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Challenging the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 10th September, 2025 and the adjudication order dated 26th December, 2025 issued in Form GSTDRC 7 for the tax period April, 2021 to March, 2022, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2 WPA 7572 of 2026 3. Mr. Ray, learned advocate representing the petitioners would submit that the determination made by the proper officer is beyond the terms of the show cause and as such the same is not sustainable. In this context, he has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 75(7) of the said Act. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the show cause notice and the order and would submit that in identical set of facts this Court in the case of M/s. Duakem Pharma Private Limited & Anr. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue & Ors., in WPA 18295 of 2024 and in the case of M/s. Duakem Pharma Private Limited & Anr. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, reported in (2026) 182 taxmann.com 658 (Calcutta) has interfered. 4. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State would submit that in the response filed by the petitioners diverse additional disclosures had been made. In this context by placing reliance on the order passed by the adjudicating authority he submits that tax due on undisclosed turnover was from time to time communicated to the taxpayers during the adjudication process. According to him, certain documents under the heading price drop and an excel file comprising list of credit notes received from his suppliers on the ground of price drop at the time of final hearing was disclosed by the petitioners. The said document has been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. The order records that the total amount of credit notes received on the 3 WPA 7572 of 2026 ground of price drop is Rs.1574102/- as per the submission of the taxpayer the amount of total credit notes issued on the ground of price difference is Rs.1322359/-. On scrutiny it transpired that the credit note issued under the heading price drop had not been declared in returns. The taxpayer had declared credit notes to the tune of Rs. 1679137/- only in the returns while on sample checking on the portal and as per reconciliation statement submitted it was revealed that the taxpayer decreased his taxable turnover by virtue of such credit notes in addition to the credit notes declared in GSTR 1 in the portal. This aspect has been clearly dealt with having regard to the provisions contained in Section 34 of the said Act and based on the aforesaid, the final adjudication order has been passed. There is no irregularity in the order. If the petitioners are aggrieved, the petitioners have an alternative remedy in the form of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act, the petitioners without availing such remedy have approached this Court. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties I find in the instant case, in the show cause notice the proper officer has identified the following discrepancies which were detected. To morefully appreciate the same the relevant portion of the aforesaid show cause is extracted hereinbelow:- 4 WPA 7572 of 2026 6. I also note in the adjudication order the adjudicating authority has determined the following amount to be payable. To morefully appreciate the same the relevant portion thereof is extracted hereinbelow:- 7. As would appear from the above I find that the determination made in the adjudication order does not stand substantiated on the ground indicated in the show cause. The learned advocate for the State has also acknowledged such fact. He would, however, submit that since the petitioners had held back information and the subsequent disclosure made by the petitioners formed the 5 WPA 7572 of 2026 basis of the adjudicating order, the said finding cannot be said to be irregular. On the aforesaid score I find that the Section 75(7) of the said Act, inter alia, provides that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice, and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice. On such ground the order falls short as the grounds based on which the demand has been confirmed are not entirely available in the show cause notice. The final demand made in the adjudication order is also higher than the demand made in the show-cause. In light of the above, I am of the view at this stage it shall only be prudent to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority by directing the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 74 of the said Act to be treated a show cause for the petitioners to respond to the same on merits only. The petitioners shall accordingly be at liberty to respond to the aforesaid order by treating the same as show cause within a period of three weeks from date. 8. In the event, the petitioners respond to the same or in the alternative no response is filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the adjudicating authority shall hear out and dispose of the aforesaid proceeding upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. 6 WPA 7572 of 2026 9. The adjudicating authority shall be at liberty to conclude the proceeding within a period of four weeks from the date of affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioners must cooperate with the adjudicating authority and shall not seek for any unnecessary adjournment. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)