AD 8. In the High Court at Calcutta 25.09.2026 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction S.D. Appellate Side Ct. No. 654 Bench ID 266460 WPA 10757 of 2026 Nuruddin Ahmed Vs. Union of India & Anr. Mr. Sanjay Bhaumik Mr. Saumya Kejriwal Ms. Ananya Rath Mr. Navin Mittal …For the petitioner Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maiti Ms. Banani Bhattacharya …For the CGST Authority 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated November 28, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Exercise, Mada Division, Malda. 2. By the said order, the authorities had levied total taxable amount of Rs.41,99,693/- together with interest on the said sum in accordance with law. 3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been served show-cause notice prior to passing of the said order in original by the authority. Pursuant to the order dated August 31, 2026, this Court directed the authorities to file a report as to whether the 2 show-cause notices or personal hearings were given to the petitioner. 4. Today, the learned advocate for the respondents has appeared and submitted a report whereby he has indicated that the show-cause notice for the year 2015-16 had been sent on September 30, 2020, for the next year, i.e. 2016-17, the notice was sent on January 6, 2021 and for the subsequent year, i.e. 2017-18, the notice was sent on June 24, 2022. It is, however, not stated in the said report as to whether the assessee received a copy of the said notices after the same were despatched. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively proved that the assessee was served with the copies of the said show-cause notices prior to the order in original was passed. It further appears that the show-cause notices has been sent to the assessee between September 30, 2020 and June 24, 2022 which was the period covered by covid. The petitioner submits that his bank accounts and the sundry debtors have been frozen and, therefore, he is unable to carry on his business. 5. After going through the records and after considering the submissions of the parties, I find that the show-cause notices sent by the 3 department ought to be replied to by the petitioner prior to passing of the order in original in accordance with law. The department is directed to unfreeze the account of the petitioner and also the sundry debtors for the period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order. Within the 10 days, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakh with the department. If such amount is deposited, the account of the petitioner shall remain unfreezed. However, in default, the accounts and sundry debtors frozen by the department shall survive. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show-cause notice within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the order and the department shall have to pass the order in original after considering the reply of the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of hearing within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 6. With this direction, WPA 10757 of 2026 is disposed of. 7. I have not gone into the issues of limitation raised by the respondents and this order shall not create any precedence for such prayer if allowed. However, I make it clear that the sole 4 reason for passing of this order is due to intervention of COVID period. 8. I have not called for any affidavit from the department. Therefore, the allegations made in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 9. I have not gone into the merits and all points are kept open. (Aryak Dutt, J.) SUROJIT DAS Digitally signed by SUROJIT DAS Date: 2026.09.25 16:39:43 +05'30'