Unique Construction Co vs. Assistant Commissioner(St)

The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction services and is registered as an Assessee under the GST regime bearing GSTIN: 37AAEFU0894L1ZM. It was subjected to an audit under Section 65 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”). A notice of discrepancies was issued on 27.12.2024, to which the petitioner submitted detailed replies on 05.07.2024 and 26.07.2024, producing all the relevant documents i.e., outward supply invoices, bank statements, etc. Respondent No.2, thereafter, issued a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 03.02.2025 for the Financial Year 2021-2022, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why tax amount of Rs.5,08,994/- should not be demanded under Section 73 of the Act to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 04.03.2025. Petitioner was afforded an afforded an opportunity of hearing. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 was passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that though the petitioner produced the relevant documents i.e., outward supply invoices for the relevant period, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order inter alia opining that the petitioner failed to produce tax invoices to the extent of ITC disallowed. He submits that order under challenge is not sustainable as the same is self contradictory. The Officer though records at one place that the relevant outward supply invoices have been produced, but again records that the same were not produced. On that ground, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel also submits that the respondent No.1 instead of confining the order with reference to the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner, went beyond the same and recorded findings that the relevant documents for the Financial Year 2021-2022 were not furnished. Insofar as delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s head office is located in Haryana and the consultant who was handling the GST matters left the office without any prior intimation and therefore, appropriate steps to challenge the impugned order could not be taken within a reasonable time. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader sought to impress upon the Court that the impugned order has been passed after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, the same warrants no interference by this Court. He also submits that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of statutory appeal has filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, he urges for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

As seen from the order impugned in the Writ Petition, more particularly the references mentioned therein, it would go to indicate that the petitioner has produced documents i.e., outward supply invoices on 25.08.2024. This aspect has been specifically mentioned in the impugned order. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the conclusion portion of the order, it is stated that the tax payer simply filed statement, but failed to produce tax invoices, which is self-contradictory.

Though the learned Government Pleader has contended that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, we are satisfied that there is a violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as documents which are stated to have been filed and recorded in the impugned order, appears to have not been examined in the proper perspective. On that ground, writ petition deserves to be allowed.

However, keeping in view the fact that the impugned order dated 17.09.2025, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the same subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

On such deposit, it is open to the respondent authorities to issue a comprehensive show cause notice to which the petitioner may submit its reply and on receipt of the same, appropriate assessment proceedings in accordance with law shall be passed.

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.