2 02.09.2026 sb Ct.9. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 1803 of 2025 Jai Maa Kamakhya Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai Mr. Hrisav Anirban Ghosh … For the petitioner. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG Ms. Esha Acharya … For the State. 1. Challenging the order dated 18th July, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) refusing to entertain the appeal from an order passed under Section 74 of the said Act dated 4th June, 2022 in respect of the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition by drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 14th May, 2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 1071 of 2025 would submit though the petitioner had initially challenged the order passed under Section 74 of the said Act by filing a writ petition before this Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 14th May, 2025 while refusing to hear out the said writ petition on the ground of alternative 2 WPA 1803 of 2025 remedy had granted leave to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act along with an application for condonation of delay. Obviously, the Court did not at that stage entertained the writ petition since an alternative remedy was available. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the show cause notice and submitted that only the date and time for submission of reply to the show cause was provided without providing date and time and venue for opportunity of hearing, which constitutes statutory infraction. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Assistant Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the State. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that scheme of the said Act provides multi-tier adjudicatory process. Not only the registered tax payer is afford an opportunity to respond to the pre-show cause notice in form GSTDRC01A but the registered tax payers is also afforded with an opportunity to respond to the show cause in form of GSTDRC01, before a decision is taken. Further having regard to the provisions contained in Section 75(4) of the said Act, when an adverse order is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax, irrespective of the fact whether such person prayed for an opportunity of personal hearing, the proper officer is obliged to provide such opportunity to such person. In the instant case, the show cause notice under Section 74 of the said Act is dated 13th April, 2022. The order passed under Section 74 3 WPA 1803 of 2025 records that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause and that the petitioner’s representative was heard some times on 11th November, 2020, which is prior to the date of issuance of show cause notice. 5. From a perusal of the order impugned it would also transpire that 11 number of e-way bills were generated but the goods were not transported or not transported as per the details furnished in the e-way bills and later the e-way bills were cancelled. The proper officer found the grounds for cancellation of e-way bills were stated as “data entry mistake” in (01) while in the other it was recorded as “order cancelled”. The proper officer by noting that the cancellation was effected within 4 hours 26 minutes of generation of e-way bills from a distance of 30 kms., was of the opinion that e-way bills were used for more than one time to transport similar goods to evade tax. It is also recorded in the order impugned that the registered tax payer during the proceedings failed to furnish any reply against the findings of e-way bill cancellation though was provided with reasonable opportunity to produce the documents in support of his claim of cancellation, the registered tax payer did not furnish any document. It is in this context that the above order was passed. Although, the proper officer claims that the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of hearing, nothing is available on record to demonstrate that any specific date, time and venue of personal hearing as is required under Section 75(4) of the said Act was 4 WPA 1803 of 2025 notified to the petitioner before a decision was taken under Section 74 (9) of the said Act. 6. Having regard to the above, I am of the view since the statute contemplates providing opportunity of hearing, such mandatory provision could not have been ignored by the proper officer. 7. In the peculiar facts, I am of the view that the above order dated 4th June, 2022 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the proper officer. 8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to use a response to the show cause dated 13th April, 2022. If such response is filed and uploaded on the portal within a period of two weeks from date, the proper officer shall accept such response and shall forthwith notify the date of personal hearing by an appropriate notice on the common portal. 9. The proper officer shall decide on the cause on an expeditious basis, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of offering opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as directed above, even if no response to the show cause is filed/uploaded as directed. 10. Since no other issue survives, the writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)