If not now, then when ?. Part nine under GST Laws

If not now, then when?. Part nine under GST Laws

1. The write ups during last one year with the sole purpose of creating awareness amongst taxpayers, tax professionals as well as tax administrators has gone well and this happens to be the write up based on a recent case which was decided on 17/02/2026 by the High court of Calcutta in WPA 28002 of 2025 in the matter of Ramkrishna Banerjee Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes and others.
2. On an average, a minimum of five cases are decided by the jurisdictional high courts situated all over India on GST which are noteworthy. As all connected with GST may not have the time and resources to go through all the cases as described above, an attempt is made to briefly describe the background of the cases, the defects which are incurable in nature committed by the tax administrators and the operative portions of the respective orders for creating awareness. The ultimate aim of the write ups is to improve the quality of adjudication orders and orders passed by first appellate authority to bring down the writs before the jurisdictional high courts as these writs are unproductive in nature which examine the cases in length by spending huge time only to arrive at the conclusion that the officer passing the orders has erred.
3. It may be observed that a major portion of the cases are decided against Revenue either by setting aside the orders or even quashing such orders which is again a unproductive work as the purpose of confirming any GST demand is to collect at least a portion of such GST. No purpose is served when the orders are set aside or quashed on which neither the adjudication officers nor their controlling officers seem to be sensitized even in the ninth year of GST.
4. Slowly the number of writs reaching the jurisdictional high courts are expected to come down as the GSTAT is already in place. As on date the GSTAT has already received 1459 e filed appeals out of which 938 have been filed during the current month and as and when the portal stabilizes, the e filed appeals are expected to grow exponentially as the taxpayers are not expected to pay any illegitimate demand.
5. It appears that the tax officials who mechanically pass orders, some times even with out application of mind (The language used is that of jurisdictional high courts) do not even know the concept of legislative intent. Any bill which when passed in both houses of parliament and gets the presidential ascent subsequently to become tax Act is well drafted with perfect clarity in mind while drafting. Let us examine this concept with respect to section 169 of the CGST Act which deals with service of notice in certain circumstances. Though there are six methods, the intent of the legislature was to apply first method which is the simplest one. In cases where the method first method is effective, meaning thereby that it has reached the attention of the taxpayer, matter ends there. However, tax officials deliberately and with ulterior motives post notices under additional notices column which was not even visible to the taxpayers during initial periods. This is only the fourth suggested method, which may be used only when first method does not work.
6. In cases where no response is received from taxpayer on method one of serving, it is not an effective serving and that is exactly why five more methods have also been prescribed only to facilitate the tax officials to make sure that the communication is an effective one. Several High Courts have held in at least 100 cases that there should not be any violation of section 75(4), especially when the order happens to be adverse to taxpayer. The officers never see clause a or b or c or e or even f of sub section 1 of section 169 as they know very well that only clause d has the maximum possibility for going unnoticed. Six methods were prescribed  only to facilitate the tax officials to make the communication effective one. The LEGILATURE has on careful thought drafted clause a as “by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or”. This makes abundantly clear that “a” is the best mode to communicate amongst all six as the chances of a becoming ineffective is very remote.
7. Let us quickly get in to the story. A show cause notice was issued which was only posted under additional notices in. the portal which the taxpayer was not aware before adjudication. Even when the adjudication order was passed on 11/08/2024 violating the principles of natural justice which also was deliberately posted under additional notices, the taxpayer was not aware of such order which was noticed by taxpayer only on 13/12/2025.
8. The taxpayer came to know that an adverse order has been passed against him on 11.08/2024 itself when the notice attaching the bank account was served on the Bank on 13/12/2025.  On noticing this attachment of bank, the taxpayer approached the jurisdictional high court as there were no other options left for the taxpayer.
9. The challenge was made by the petitioner  even on section 168A as there were no force majeure situation during December 2023 when notification number 56/2023 was issued on 28/12/2023.
10. For violations of sections 168A as well as 75(4) of the CGST Act, the Court found merits in the arguments of the petitioner and did not have any hesitation to pass the following order.
11. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner’s bank accounts have been attached on the basis of the aforesaid adjudication order. Since the respondent/GST Authorities have been restrained from recovering any amount on the basis of the said adjudication order, the respondent GST Authorities shall lift the attachment.
12. Though the above order dated 17/02/2026 is interim in view of the fact that revenue sought time for filing affidavit, this order has been passed based on exact legal provisions.
13. Let the GST Council as well as CBIC come forward to address the issues pertaining to passing of orders which are ultimately set aside or even quashed later by the competent courts as it speaks on the poor quality of adjudication orders for which only the tax officials as well as tax administrators can find the correct solution. I keep on stressing this point at the cost of repetition so that at least at some part of time, this reaches the attention of the correct person.