Facts of the Case

Aparajita Mukherjee's access to the GST portal had been denied, preventing her from filing statutory responses or an appeal. Following an earlier order dated 30th July 2025, the CGST authorities (respondent no. 5) restored her portal access, confirmed to the Calcutta High Court on 4th August 2025, with the department explaining the earlier delay was due to a communication gap rather than any lack of intent to comply. Meanwhile, an order dated 26th August 2024 had already been passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, and a separate show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 29th May 2024 remained pending and unadjudicated.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a taxpayer who was denied portal access, and therefore could not file a timely appeal against a Section 73 order, should be granted a fresh window to appeal once access is restored.
  2. How a still-pending, unadjudicated show-cause notice from the same period should be dealt with, including whether Section 74 could properly apply.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Could not have filed an appeal against the 26th August 2024 order, nor responded to the pending 29th May 2024 show-cause notice, because she did not have access to the GST portal.
  • Sought restoration of access (already substantially achieved) and a fresh opportunity to exercise both remedies.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The CGST authorities confirmed portal access had been restored in compliance with the Court's earlier direction, attributing the delay to a communication gap rather than any lack of good intent, and confirmed the 29th May 2024 show-cause notice remained pending and unadjudicated.

Court Order / Findings

  • With the portal-access issue resolved, the Court dispensed with the respondent's personal appearance and granted the petitioner an opportunity to file an appeal against the 26th August 2024 Section 73 order within four weeks, directing the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits by a reasoned order.
  • Separately, since the 29th May 2024 show-cause notice remained pending, the petitioner was permitted to file an additional response within two weeks, which the proper officer must consider in accordance with law after granting a hearing.
  • The proper officer was specifically directed to also consider whether Section 74 could at all have been invoked on the facts of the case while passing the eventual order. The writ petition, along with the connected application, was disposed of on these terms with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • Denial of GST portal access is treated by courts as sufficient justification to reopen the limitation window for filing an appeal or responding to a pending show-cause notice, since the assessee had no practical means of exercising her statutory remedies in the interim.
  • Where a notice invoking the fraud-based Section 74 is still pending adjudication, courts are directing the proper officer to specifically examine at the threshold whether invocation of Section 74 (as opposed to Section 73) is even justified on the facts, before finalising any demand.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid, non-fraud, under which the August 2024 order was passed.
  • Section 74, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 — fraud-based determination, whose applicability was left open for the proper officer to consider regarding the pending notice.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — appellate remedy and limitation, extended here due to the portal-access denial.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. Fresh opportunities were granted both to appeal the existing order and to respond to the pending show-cause notice, with the applicability of Section 74 itself left open for determination.

Case Details

Court: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)
Case No.: WPA 24091 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Date of Order: 06.08.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.