M/S Shivansh Enterprises Having Gstin- 10Ajmpr9488E1Zs vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not entertainable. The Court noted that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner via the common portal, and the service of subsequent reminders was not disputed. Crucially, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing and did not file a statutory appeal against the impugned order dated February 11, 2025. Instead, the petitioner filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 13 months. Relying on its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K Traders vs State of Bihar & Ors.) and the Supreme Court's decision in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 447, the Court opined that entertaining a writ application with such unexplained delay would frustrate legislative intent. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances, the Court found that the present case, with its delay and failure to avail statutory remedies, did not fall within such exceptions. Therefore, the Court declined to consider the matter on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivansh Enterprises, filed a writ application challenging a demand order dated February 11, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for the period 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the demand order was issued without proper opportunity to reply and personal hearing, violating Section 75(4). They also sought to quash the show cause notice dated November 23, 2024, issued under Section 73(1), alleging it was defective. The show cause notice alleged suppression of turnover, short payment of tax, excess ITC availed, and non-payment of tax on RCM basis, demanding Rs. 8,90,144/-. The petitioner argued that notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and not served via registered email, violating Section 169 read with Section 146.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand order dated February 11, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not affording proper opportunity to reply and personal hearing, as contended by the petitioner under Section 75(4) of the Act? 2. Whether the show cause notice dated November 23, 2024, issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is defective, and whether service of notices solely through the GST portal, without registered email, violates Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Act, as argued by the petitioner? 3. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the alleged inordinate delay of 13 months in filing the writ petition after the impugned order, as argued by the respondent State? Petitioner's Arguments: The demand order and show cause notice are bad in law due to violation of natural justice and defective service of notices. Notices were not served through registered email or other modes as required by Section 169 read with Section 146. Respondent State's Arguments: The petitioner has an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107. The writ application is barred by an inordinate delay of 13 months. Service of notice on the common portal is valid as per Section 169, and ample opportunity of hearing was afforded.