Pharma Trading Corporation and Anr. v. The State of West Bengal &Ors.

#9. Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the proper officer has committed a series of errors. It is submitted that the show cause notice is bereft of the requisite particulars and as such the petitioners remained deprived of an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against them.

#10. It is further submitted that the adjudication order dated May 29, 2023 that followed thereafter is in absolute contravention of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the said Act of 2017 inasmuch as the same only contains a chart indicating the taxes payable by the petitioners without setting out the relevant facts and the basis of the conclusion.

#11. It is further submitted that the said order had been passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017.

#12. Mr. Ray further submits that the adjudication order uploaded subsequently on June 05, 2023 also suffers from the same vices. The same was also not preceded by any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same is also bereft of the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. It is submitted that both the orders carry an earlier intimation in Form ASMT10 as an annexure instead of the detailed adjudication order.

#13. It is then submitted that in any case the petitioners are not liable to pay anything inasmuch as by the order dated June 09, 2023, the proper officer had accepted the reply of the petitioners and upon observing that such reply was satisfactory and no further action was required to be taken in the matter.

#14. Mr.Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent SGST Authorities submits that the respondents should be permitted to withdraw their actions and the matter may be remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in view of the serial erroneous uploading of orders.

#15. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

#16. Upon hearing the case initially, a report in the form of an affidavit had been called for from the respondent/GST Authorities in view of the peculiar fact situation. Such report was filed in court on February 23, 2026 wherein it has been stated that the orders dated June 05, 2023 and June 09, 2023 had been uploaded inadvertently.

#17. Such an excuse is wholly unacceptable. There has been series of laches on the part of the relevant GST Authority in dealing with the present matter and this Court takes a very dim view of such matter.

#18. Firstly, the notice to show cause is clearly bereft of particulars. It has been time and again held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all relevant particulars must be set out in the notice to show cause to enable the noticee to answer the charges levelled against the noticee. Not having done so, the respondent GST Authority has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice.

#19. Secondly, the adjudication order impugned dated May 29, 2023 is wholly unreasoned and is, therefore, in abject violation of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the said Act of 2017. It is not in dispute that the said order which clearly visits the petitioner with adverse consequences has been passed without hearing the petitioners which is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017 apart from the violation of principles of natural justice even in usual course. On that ground too the adjudication order cannot withstand scrutiny under judicial review.

#20. The second repetition of the same adjudication order on June 05, 2023 was clearly without authority. Similarly the order dated June 09, 2023 communicating acceptance of the petitioner’s reply could also not have been issued by the Proper Officer concerned at all inasmuch as the Proper Officer became functus officioafter having passed the adjudication order dated May 29, 2023. Both the said order are without jurisdiction.

#21. In such view of the matter, both the adjudication orders i.e. the order dated May 29, 2023 and June 05, 2023 passed by the adjudicating authority, which are impugned in the present writ petition as well as the order dated June 09, 2023 deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.

#22. As already indicated hereinabove, since the notice to show cause does not contain the relevant particulars, the notice issuing authority shall provide all relevant particulars to the petitioners in support of the show cause notice dated February 21, 2023 and the petitioners shall be entitled to file reply thereto in accordance with law.

#23. Since a sum of Rs.2,51,858/- has been debited from the petitioners’ electronic credit ledger on the basis of the adjudication order dated June 5, 2023, which has no basis in law, in terms of the respondents own report in the form of an affidavit, therefore the debiting of electronic cash ledger of the petitioner on the strength of such order cannot also be held to be valid. Accordingly it is directed that the respondent GST authorities shall reverse the debits and recredit the amount debited from the petitioner’s electronic cash ledger on the strength of the order dated June 05, 2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

#24. WPA 21671 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. (SD) (Om Narayan Rai, J.)