Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 483 of 2026 Bikash Sharma Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai Mr. Vivek Saha Mr.Binayak Bandopadhyay Mr. Hrisav Anirban Ghosh For the State : Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG Ms. Radhika Agarwal For the respondent nos. : Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal 2 and 3 Mr. Biswaraj Agarwal Heard on : 02.09.2026 Judgment on : 02.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the CGST authorities at the very outset raises objection as regards the petitioner arraying the State as the respondent no.1, inasmuch as, the order impugned has been passed by the CGST authorities. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that that the CGST authorities have been arrayed as respondent nos. 2 and 2 WPA 483 of 2026 3. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the objection raised by Mr. Agarwal. 3. Challenging the order dated 24th February, 2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act’) for the tax period April, 2020 to March, 2021 an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act was filed before the appellate authority. The said appeal came to be rejected by an order dated 30th January, 2026 as would corroborate from Form GSTAPL-04 as being barred by limitation. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate, has, however, drawn attention of this Court to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act and the order passed under Section 73(9) thereof. By referring to the aforesaid order, he would submit that though the proper officer was obliged to confine the adjudication to the show cause notice, the determination made by the proper officer exceeds the amount indicated in the show cause which infringes Section 75(7) of the said Act. According to him, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the appellate authority has purported to reject the appeal without looking into the material irregularity in the order, only on the ground of limitation. 5. Mr. Agarwal learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. He submits that the petitioner has only challenged the order passed by the appellate authority and as such the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the order in original. 3 WPA 483 of 2026 According to him, since the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the said Act has already been constituted and is functional, this Court should not entertain the writ petition and should permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find in this matter, an order in original has already been passed. It is also not in dispute that in order to prefer an appeal, as is required for maintaining the appeal, the petitioner has pre-deposited 10 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute. The appellate authority, however, chose not to go into the merits of the appeal and rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. 7. Though Mr. Agarwal would contend that since the petitioner has challenged the rejection of the appeal and since the Tribunal is at present available, this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition, I, however, find that in the instant case, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the proper officer in determining the amount of tax, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 75(7) of the said Act. To morefully appreciate the aforesaid, the relevant Section is extracted hereinbelow:- Section 75(7) “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”. 4 WPA 483 of 2026 8. In the instant case, though the show cause was confined to a demand-cum-show cause for sum of Rs.9,38,898/- the determination in Form GSTDRC 07 dated 24th February, 2025 has been computed to Rs.10,27,788/-. 9. Since, there appears to be a glaring jurisdictional error committed by the proper officer in determining the demand beyond the demand-cum-show cause, in my view no fruitful purpose will be served to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Both orders passed by the proper officer dated 24th February, 2025 as also by the appellate authority dated 30th January, 2026, are set aside. 10. The matter is remanded back to the proper officer. The proper officer shall hear out and dispose of the show cause in accordance with law upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. For the said purpose the proper officer shall issue a notice to the petitioner on common portal before proceeding further. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is 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.) sb A.R. (Court)