The court quashed an adjudication order and related rejection of a condonation plea after the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on an ‘additional notices’ portal and the taxpayer did not get a practical opportunity to be heard.
The court set aside both the Order-in-Original and a later order that rejected the taxpayer’s plea for condonation of delay, and ordered fresh opportunity to reply within four weeks.
Authorities cannot rely on limitation alone to refuse to consider the taxpayer’s substantive replies where the SCN process denied them an effective chance to be heard.
M/s Silicon Ceramics & Ors. challenged a GST adjudication that arose after a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to them. The SCN was uploaded on an additional notices portal rather than being served in a way the petitioners effectively saw. The notice's columns for date, time and venue of personal hearing read "Not Applicable." When the petitioners did not file a response, an Order-in-Original followed.
After discovering the Order-in-Original, the petitioners applied for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The tax authorities rejected that application, taking the view that the statutory time limit for filing an appeal could not be extended. The petitioners then moved the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition to challenge the adjudication order and the earlier rejection.
Justice Aryak Dutt examined how the SCN was served. The court recorded that the SCN had been placed on the additional notices portal and accepted it was possible the petitioners overlooked that portal and therefore did not get an opportunity to reply. On that basis the court set aside the impugned orders dated February 12, 2026 and the Order-in-Original dated October 3, 2023 to the extent those orders were passed without considering the petitioners' contentions and supporting documents.
Practical outcome and next steps ordered by the court
Case title: M/s Silicon Ceramics Vs Additional Commissioner of State Tax, WPA 9470 of 2026. For the petitioners: Mr Tarun Kr. Gupta and Mr Indranil Banerjee. For the respondent: Mr Soumen Bhattacharjee.
Why this matters for taxpayers and practitioners
Check all portals and channels where authorities may upload notices. If a taxpayer misses a notice because it was placed on an auxiliary portal, consider seeking relief promptly and prepare to argue lack of effective service and absence of an opportunity to be heard.
Preserve the timeline and evidence showing when the taxpayer became aware of the SCN and the order. When challenging adjudication, record the mode of service and ask courts to direct a fresh opportunity to reply if service was not reasonably effective.
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a 1.18 crore GST demand and granted retrospective ITC relief for the late filing of GSTR-3B. The applicant, Manash Ghosh, contested the legality and sustainability of the adjudication order dated 19 April 2024, passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act
The Calcutta High Court has mentioned that GST authorities cannot issue an SCN or determine the tax obligation against a deceased individual and should issue the notice to the legal representative of the deceased in their own name. While setting aside a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2
The Rajasthan High Court has stated that authentication of portal access and authentication of a document are not the same requirements. The Court set aside the unsigned SCN and order. The applicant, Star Raison Landmarks, was chosen for the scrutiny proceedings via Form ASMT-10. Following the response to this, a ‘show
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings emerging from a GST audit are different from the adjudicatory proceedings initiated u/s of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar refused to interfere with an SCN issued to a pharmaceutical di
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the GST Department’s plea seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court reached this decision after considering the Department’s counsel’s argument that the accused could not be arrested without an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act and prior notification of that order.
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has said that electronic gift vouchers (EGVs) can be a mode of passing on a GST rate reduction, where they furnish customers with a direct monetary credit without conditions, expiry, or usage restrictions. The ruling came in proceedings involving Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd., accused of fa
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.