T. K. Logistics v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
T. K. Logistics filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9623/2024, 10 September 2026) against an adjudication order and show cause notice demanding tax, interest and penalty uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notice and Orders," without separate intimation; personal hearing showed "NA." The company discovered the demand only when enforcement was initiated. Sections 169 and 75 CGST applied. The petitioner remained unaware and could not reply. Justice Smita Das De found breach of natural justice, quashed the order-in-original and remanded for hearing after valid notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The decision pairs mis-tabbed service with failure to grant Section 75 personal hearing as grounds to reopen GST demands in West Bengal, consistent with Raju Ghosh and Tahir Khan.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
- CGST S.75 — General provisions relating to determination of tax.
Source documents
Similar rulings
See the decision
Tahir Khan v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
Tahir Khan approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9627/2024, 10 September 2026) with similar facts to companion logistics cases: show cause notice and adjudication order appeared under "Additional Notices and Orders" without separate intimation, and no personal hearing was afforded under Section 75 CGST read with Section 169. Unable to reply, the petitioner faced ex parte liability including interest and penalty. The court held natural justice was violated, quashed the impugned order and directed opportunity of personal hearing with a fresh speaking order on merits. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. Tahir Khan illustrates the Calcutta High Court's consolidated approach to West Bengal portal-tab defects and "NA" hearing entries in 2024–2026 adjudications, leaving revenue free to re-determine tax after compliance with Section 169.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Gajendra Singh Cont. v. Assistant Commissioner
In a contempt-related writ before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 647/2026, 11 August 2026), Gajendra Singh challenged an adjudication order passed after cancellation of registration, without personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) CGST and with notice served only via portal post-cancellation. The demand related to tax, interest and penalty determined without the petitioner participating. Sections 169, 73 and 75 governed service and hearing. The court quashed the order and directed fresh adjudication after granting proper personal hearing in accordance with law, including valid service where registration no longer required portal monitoring. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The ruling integrates cancelled-registration service law with mandatory personal hearing under Section 75, preventing ex parte demands where both defects coexist and reinforcing Uttarakhand's approach in Winstrol and Ayaz Traders.
In favour of the revenue
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. challenged ex parte GST demand before the Patna High Court (CWJC 4914/2026, 17 July 2026), alleging non-service and denial of hearing. The department showed show cause notices and reminders through portal and registered email with specific input tax credit mismatch figures under Sections 73, 75, 79 and 107 CGST and Rule 142. The petitioner neither categorically denied email receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC to rebut the mismatch. Article 226 scope was noted: writ courts do not rehear merits when procedural objections are implausible. Bare allegations lacked credibility against departmental records evidencing participation. The writ failed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Bihar assessees cannot rely on generic non-service pleas where email and portal trails plus undisputed ITC discrepancies show effective engagement, contrasting Subhash Kumar Sah where no such record existed.
In favour of the assessee
Alder Crafts v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Alder Crafts challenged GST proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP 15378/2025, 2 July 2026) after a show cause notice appeared only under the GST portal tab "Additional Notices" rather than "Notices and Orders." Ex parte adjudication and recovery followed. The petitioner relied on Sections 169, 75 and 79 CGST. The Division Bench held there was no valid service on the tab where assessees ordinarily expect primary communications, rendering the subsequent ex parte order and recovery notice unsustainable. All impugned proceedings were quashed with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice through valid modes and tabs. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment adds to High Court jurisprudence distinguishing main portal notices from ancillary tabs, emphasizing that mis-tabbed uploads frustrate natural justice and cannot trigger coercive recovery or final liability.
In favour of the assessee
Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Lazard Infrastructure LLP filed a writ before the Karnataka High Court (WP 28678/2026, 15 September 2026) after its supplier LLP's input tax credit was blocked on the GST portal without prior intimation or pre-decisional hearing, based largely on advisory communication pending verification. The block disrupted downstream credit availability though no formal notice under Rule 86A preceded the restriction. Rule 86A and Section 169 were considered. The court found mechanical blocking unjustified where no show cause or hearing preceded the restriction. ITC was directed to be unblocked forthwith; fresh action could proceed only after due notice and opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Recipient taxpayers affected by supplier-side blocks gain support for immediate unblock orders when departments act on unverified alerts without Rule 86A compliance, paralleling GVS Engineering on procedural invalidity.