October 7, 2026 (24) ARDR In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction WPA 2814 of 2026 Dilip Kumar Mitra Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Himangshu Kumar Ray, Adv. Abhilash Mittal, Adv. Hiqa Naz Pradhan, Adv. Subhasis Podder, Adv. Kanchan Singha, … for the petitioner. Adv. Supriya Singh, Adv. Esha Acharya, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner has assailed the ex parte adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the recovery notice issued on 1st July, 2026 on several counts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner sought an adjournment on medical grounds as well as an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017. The prayer was not acceded to by the authority who passed the order impugned in absence of the petitioner. The order is in violation of Section 75(6) of the Act since it does not set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision taken by the authority. The adjournment order was not uploaded by 2 the Revenue under “notices/orders” tab on the GST web portal. It was uploaded under “additional notices/ orders” tab for which the petitioner was unable to track the same. It appears that subsequently both the tabs have merged but the date of such merger is not clear. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the authority to revisit the issue upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. After the order was passed a sum of Rs.4,89,541/- was recovered from the electronic credit ledger and electronic cash ledger of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that the date and time for personal hearing were fixed by the authority despite which the petitioner failed to appear before them. However, the request for adjournment made by the petitioner does not appear to have been considered. Upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court of the view that since the adjudication order was passed ex parte without considering the prayer for adjournment made by the petitioner and also without hearing the petitioner on the issue, the order needs to be set aside in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the adjudication order dated 22nd August, 2024 and the recovery notice issued as a consequence thereof on 1st July, 2026 are quashed/set aside. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (SGST), Jalpaiguri Charge, being the 4th respondent herein, is directed to revisit the issue upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a reasoned decision within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. On prayer of the petitioner, liberty is granted to submit a reply to the show cause notice issued by the authority. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J)