Calcutta High Court Allows Delayed GST Appeal: A Landmark Ruling on Natural Justice and Portal Communication

If you missed a GST appeal deadline due to illness or didn’t see the notice on the GST portal, can your case still be heard? A recent Calcutta High Court judgment says yes - if justice was denied, timelines can wait.

Facts of the Case

-The appellant is a partnership firm that received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 10 May 2024 under Section 73(1) of the WBGST Act.
- The SCN fixed a personal hearing on 3 June 2024 and set the deadline for filing a reply as 10 June 2024.
- The appellant submitted its written reply on 10 June 2024 and explicitly requested a personal hearing.
- Despite this, the Proper Officer passed an ex parte assessment order on 12 August 2024 imposing a tax liability of Rs.17,79,242.
- The order was uploaded only under the “View Additional Notices/Orders” tab on the GST portal, not under the standard “View Notices and Orders” tab, which is commonly monitored by taxpayers.
- The appellant filed an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act on 2 April 2025, which was nearly three months and twenty days beyond the statutory maximum period.
- The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23 April 2025 on the ground of limitation.
- A writ petition was also dismissed by the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 11 June 2025.
- The present matter came before the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal.

Issues Before the Court

- Whether the delay in filing the GST appeal beyond the four-month period under Section 107 can be condoned by applying the Limitation Act
- Whether the assessment order passed without granting a proper personal hearing, despite being requested, is violative of natural justice
- Whether uploading the order in the "Additional Notices/Orders" tab satisfies the requirement of communication under the Act

Legal Provisions Involved

- Section 73(1) of the WBGST Act requires the Proper Officer to issue a Show Cause Notice in case of tax short-payment without fraud or suppression.
- Section 73(9) mandates that the Proper Officer must consider any reply submitted before passing the final order.
- Section 75(4) mandates that if an assessee requests a personal hearing or if any adverse decision is contemplated, a hearing must be granted.
- Section 107(1) provides a three-month timeline for filing appeals.
- Section 107(4) allows for a one-month condonable delay on showing sufficient cause.

Court’s Observations and Findings

1. Delay in Filing Appeal

- The Division Bench noted that Section 107(4) is not worded in a mandatory tone. It does not include restrictive phrases such as “no appeal shall be entertained after...”
- The court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in the absence of any express exclusion in the WBGST Act.
- Specifically, Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows delay to be condoned if the party can demonstrate sufficient cause.
- In this case, the appellant had cited valid medical emergencies involving both active partners of the firm.
- One partner had undergone surgery while the other was occupied caring for a seriously ill parent.
- The court found this explanation sufficient and genuine.
- It also considered the issue of the order being uploaded in a less visible part of the GST portal, which made it difficult to discover.
- The Division Bench overruled the Appellate Authority and the Single Judge, holding that delay was justifiably condonable.

2. Violation of Natural Justice

- The hearing was fixed on 3 June 2024, but the reply was due only on 10 June 2024.
- Therefore, the hearing occurred before the assessee had submitted its defense.
- The appellant had clearly requested a personal hearing in its reply.
- Under Section 75(4), such a hearing becomes mandatory.
- The Proper Officer did not grant any fresh opportunity after receiving the reply.
- The court held that such a hearing, fixed before submission of reply, was merely symbolic and not meaningful.
- As per legal interpretation, a hearing must follow a reply, not precede it.
- The court considered this a direct breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, a core rule of natural justice.

3. Communication through GST Portal

- The order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices/Orders" tab, which is the seventh option on the portal and is not intuitively accessed by taxpayers.
- The main tab titled “View Notices and Orders” is commonly assumed to contain all relevant orders and notices.
- There is no official clarification on what content is uploaded where, causing confusion and non-service in practice.
- The court found that the uploading of notices and orders in this manner did not constitute proper communication under the WBGST Act.
- In absence of email or SMS alerts and a clearly designed interface, mere uploading in an obscure tab is not sufficient.

Final Judgment of the Court

- The Division Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the following:
- Assessment order dated 12 August 2024
- Appellate order dated 23 April 2025
- Single Judge’s order dated 11 June 2025

- The department was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice under Section 73(1) and proceed in accordance with law, after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

- The court also directed the GST authorities to take curative steps with respect to the portal structure. Tabs must be clearly defined or consolidated to ensure proper service of notices.

- There was no order as to costs.

Practical Takeaways for Professionals
- Limitation Act provisions, particularly Section 5, apply unless specifically excluded
- GST hearing must be granted after reply is submitted, not before
- Courts will intervene when there is a clear denial of natural justice, even if the delay appears procedural
- Taxpayers and consultants should document medical or technical difficulties when dealing with timelines and portal compliance

Disclaimer: This material and the information contained herein is intended for clients and other Chartered Accountants to provide updates and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject. We are not, by means of this material, rendering any professional advice or services. It should not be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business.