Kishan Ghar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the writ application on the grounds of delay and the existence of an alternative remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner was validly served with the show cause notice in Form DRC-01 on the common portal under Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's failure to file submissions in Form DRC-06 and their indolent approach led the respondent authority to pass an ex-parte order dated 27.06.2024, which was uploaded on the common portal. The Court found that the petitioner had not availed the available remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and had filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 15 months from the date of the impugned order. Citing its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs State of Bihar & Ors.) and the Supreme Court's decision in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., the Court held that entertaining a writ application filed after such a significant delay, especially when an alternative statutory remedy exists, would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. The Court acknowledged that while an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances like breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, the present case did not warrant such an exception due to the petitioner's inaction and delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Kishan Ghar, engaged in the business of fertilisers, seeds, pesticides, agro-chemicals, and other chemicals, challenges an order dated 27.06.2024 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and a summary of order in Form DRC-07 dated 28.06.2024, both for the period 2021-22. These orders, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle-2, raised a demand of Rs. 6,32,795/-. The petitioner contends that the assessment order was ex-parte, with no valid show cause notice or intimation served prior to its passing. The petitioner claims to have learned about the demand informally in June 2025 and asserts that no attempts were made to serve notices through permissible modes under Section 169. The petitioner also states that it had discharged its output tax liability and that the impugned order considered ITC on purchases from suppliers allegedly dealing in unrelated goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 27.06.2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the alleged non-service of a valid show cause notice on the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the writ application, filed approximately 15 months after the passing of the impugned order, is maintainable given the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the inordinate delay? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the assessment order is ex-parte and void ab initio due to the absence of valid service of the show cause notice. They claim to have discovered the demand informally in June 2025 and that no attempts were made to serve notices via post, email, or other electronic means as per Section 169. The petitioner also states that they had discharged their output tax liability and that the ITC in question was availed on purchases from suppliers who were allegedly non-operational and dealing in unrelated goods. Respondent's arguments: The respondent department contends that a notice in Form DRC-01, along with the show cause notice, was uploaded on the common portal on 20.02.2024. A reminder notice was sent on 04.04.2024 due to the petitioner's non-appearance. The petitioner failed to submit a reply in Form DRC-06 or appear, compelling the authority to pass an ex-parte order. The department argues that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity and that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 exists. They further submit that the writ application is filed after an inordinate delay of 15 months and should be dismissed on this ground.