55 07.09.2026 sayandeep Ct.9. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE WPA 1951 of 2026 Harphool Chowdhury @ Harphool Choudhary Versus The State of West Bengal & anr. Mr. Himangshu Kr. Ray Mr. Subhasis Poddar Mr. Abhilash Mittal Mrs. Hiqa Naz Pradhan … For the petitioner. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld.AGP Ms. Rashika Agarwal … For State. 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Challenging the order dated 22nd January, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the tax period of March 2018 to 2019, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that though the petitioner was offered an opportunity to file response to the show- cause, the date of personal hearing provided therein, was prior to the date of filing of such response. It is also the petitioner’s case that the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act was uploaded on the common 2 portal under the view additional notices tab and not under the view notices and orders tab. 4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit by reasons of the aforesaid, the petitioner could not identify the order for the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal in time. This apart, according to him, there has been violation of Section 75(4) of the said Act inasmuch as no appropriate opportunity of hearing was provided. By drawing attention of this Court to the notice dated 27th July, 2026 issued in form GST DRC 13 and the notice dated 14th August, 2026, he would submit that not only the petitioner’s bank account had been attached but the entire demand on account of tax has already been realized. 5. The State is represented. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner in the instant case may not have been afforded with an appropriate opportunity of hearing at the first instance especially when the date for offering opportunity of hearing was prior to the date for filing response. Though an opportunity of hearing was granted, calling upon the petitioner to make an oral representation for being heard before the date for submission of response was to expire, does not appear to be meaningful opportunity of hearing. On such ground, I find that the order suffers from the non-compliance of Section 75(4) of the said Act. This apart, as noticed above, the order 3 was uploaded under the view additional notices tab and not under the view notices and orders tab which is ordinarily meant for uploading orders; the petitioner may have missed the matter and a valuable opportunity to prefer an appeal from the same. 7. In view of the above and noting that the department has already realized taxable amount, I am of the view that it would be prudent at this stage to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority so as to afford the petitioner with an opportunity to respond to the show- cause and to be afforded with an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75 (4) of the said Act. In view thereof, by setting aside the order dated 22nd January, 2024, I remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits. The petitioner shall be at liberty to respond to the show-cause within a period of two weeks from date and if such response is filed, or in the event, the same is not filed, the proper officer shall hear out and dispose of the show-cause after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, the order of attachment issued in form DRC 13 dated 27th July, 2026 and other consequential orders, if any, stand quashed. 8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)