The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order dismissing a GST appeal on limitation, observing that a senior citizen unfamiliar with electronic compliance cannot be left without a remedy because his tax consultant’s prolonged illness prevented him from learning of the notices.
The bench of Justice Smita Das De directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after granting a personal hearing. The authority was also asked to independently consider the taxpayer’s bank account attachment, recoveries from the Electronic Credit Ledger and the pre-deposit made for filing the appeal.
Buy Now: All 200+ GSTAT Judgements Till November 2026 | Comprehensive E-Magazine
The petitioner/assessee challenged the appellate order dated November 21, 2025, passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the corresponding West Bengal GST legislation.
The proceedings arose from an ex parte adjudication order. The petitioner maintained that the show-cause notice had not been effectively served and that he had received no meaningful opportunity to rebut its allegations.
His appeal against the adjudication order was dismissed at the threshold solely on limitation, without examination of the merits.
The central issue before the High Court was whether the authorities could recover amounts and attach the taxpayer’s bank account without giving him an opportunity to answer the allegations in the show-cause notice.
The order records that the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax as the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.
Nevertheless, the authorities proceeded with coercive recovery through garnishee notices and attached his bank account on February 19, 2026.
The order also records recoveries of ₹3,59,409 and ₹1,04,574 from the Electronic Credit Ledger on January 14, 2026, and February 20, 2026, respectively. The dispute concerned the period from April 2020 to March 2021.
The petitioner contended that the recovery measures had brought his business operations to a standstill and caused undue financial hardship.
Explaining his failure to respond, the petitioner stated that he was a senior citizen without the technical expertise required to operate the GST portal electronically. He was wholly dependent on his tax consultant for compliance.
According to the petitioner, the consultant’s prolonged illness resulted in the notices not coming to his knowledge. He maintained that the delay was neither deliberate nor wilful and arose from bona fide circumstances beyond his control.
The petitioner consequently challenged the proceedings as a violation of natural justice, arguing that he had been denied an effective opportunity to contest the allegations before the demand and recovery measures followed.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the taxpayer had been afforded ample opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. It specifically contended that the notice had also been physically served.
The State argued that the petitioner was liable to pay tax and interest and/or reverse input tax credit, including liabilities concerning unreconciled taxable turnover. It maintained that he had failed to produce relevant documents supporting his position.
According to the State, the petitioner had not complied with the authorities’ directions despite repeated reminders. It therefore defended the dismissal of the appeal on limitation and argued that the impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity.
After considering the rival submissions and the record, the High Court observed that the petitioner had remained unaware of the notices because of the prolonged illness of the consultant managing his business affairs.
The court also took account of the petitioner’s age and lack of technical knowledge in operating the electronic system. In those circumstances, it held that he could not be left remediless because of unforeseen events.
To balance the equities and secure the ends of justice, the court directed the appellate authority to revisit the matter and dispose of the appeal on merits in light of Section 107(7) of the CGST Act and the corresponding West Bengal GST legislation.
The appellate authority must provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
The court fixed a deadline of six weeks from communication of its order for deciding the appeal. The decision must then be communicated to the petitioner within a further week.
The authority was directed to decide independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations. The petitioner was also instructed not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
The High Court specifically directed the appellate authority to consider the bank attachment, amounts recovered from the Electronic Credit Ledger and the pre-deposit, including the 10% of disputed tax deposited for pursuing the appeal.
However, the court did not itself direct immediate release of the attached bank account or refund of the recovered amounts. Those issues remain subject to the appellate authority’s independent determination.
The court ultimately quashed the order dated November 21, 2025, and disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the tax dispute.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
