Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

‘Possibility’ of Email/SMS Notice of GST order Not Conclusive: Calcutta HC orders Fresh Consideration [Read Order]

The appellate order has not even reached a conclusion that the notification as spoken of in the said order was at all sent to the petitioner either through SMS or through e-mail. The order only speaks of a possibility, said the court.

‘Possibility’ of Email/SMS Notice of GST order Not Conclusive: Calcutta HC orders Fresh Consideration [Read Order]
X

The Calcutta High Court held that a mere “possibility” that an assessee may have received an SMS/email alert regarding a GST ( Goods and Services tax ) adjudication order is not conclusive proof of service.A writ was filed by Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works Private Limited. The assessee challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act,...


The Calcutta High Court held that a mere “possibility” that an assessee may have received an SMS/email alert regarding a GST ( Goods and Services tax ) adjudication order is not conclusive proof of service.

A writ was filed by Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works Private Limited. The assessee challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Through the order, appeal was dismissed only on the ground of delay.

The petitioner argued that it could not file the appeal within time since the adjudication order was uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, and not in the main tab.

The personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of GST Act was not provided by the department, submitted by the petitioner’s counsel, Adv. Sandip Choraria.

The petitioner additionally argued that the adjudication order was unreasoned, as it did not disclose any basis for the conclusions reached.

The state department contended that the appellate order was valid and stated that the SMS and email history of the petitioner’s registered mobile number and email ID were checked.

The department said that it could be proved that apart from uploading the order on the portal, a notification must have been sent to the petitioner.

In response, the petitioner produced a screenshot of its email inbox to show that no such notification was received.

The court after noting the appellate order observed that “The appellate order has not even reached a conclusion that the notification as spoken of in the said order was at all sent to the petitioner either through SMS or through e-mail. The order only speaks of a possibility.”

Justice Om Narayan Rai noted that no personal hearing was passed before passing an adversary order. The order of one and half pages does not provide any reason for the conclusion that the proper officer has ultimately reached, said the court.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the appellate order and directed fresh consideration of the matter after granting proper opportunity of hearing.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax , 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 187 , W.P.A. 17928 of 2025 , 13 January 2026 , Sandip Choraria , Tanoy Chakraborty
Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 187Case Number :  W.P.A. 17928 of 2025Date of Judgement :  13 January 2026Coram :  Om Narayan RaiCounsel of Appellant :  Sandip ChorariaCounsel Of Respondent :  Tanoy Chakraborty
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019