M/S Banwarilal Wood Craft vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable due to the inordinate delay and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court referenced its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and Supreme Court judgments in Assistant Commissioner CT Vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. and ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. The Court found that the petitioner received the show cause notice on 13.11.2021 and submitted a reply on 17.11.2021, after which the impugned order was passed on 06.12.2021. As per Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, the petitioner was required to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court noted that the petitioner filed the writ application after a delay of three years and eight months, which frustrates the legislative intent and renders the statutory scheme otiose. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, challenge to vires), the Court concluded that a writ application filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, without sufficient cause, should not be entertained. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition without considering the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Banwarilal Wood Craft, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.12.2021 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, which imposed a demand of Rs. 2,27,761/- for the period 2020-21. The petitioner also challenged the show cause notice dated 13.11.2021 and a notice dated 07.01.2025 under Section 79(1)(c) leading to the blocking of bank accounts for Rs. 7,88,630/-. The petitioner claimed their business was shut down from 2019-2020 and they assumed their GST registration was cancelled. They were unaware of the proceedings until their bank accounts were blocked. The petitioner argued that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted and notices were uploaded to the wrong portal tab. The revenue contended that notices were validly served via the GST portal and the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 and the preceding show cause notice dated 13.11.2021, issued under Sections 73(9) and 73(1) respectively of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) and the improper uploading of notices? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was uploaded to the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab instead of the "Notices and Orders" tab, and the column for personal hearing was marked "NA", thus violating Section 75(4). They also claimed they were unaware of the proceedings due to the belief that their registration was cancelled and that their accountants handled compliance. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that notices were validly served through the common GST portal in terms of Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. They argued that the petitioner had already submitted a reply (DRC-06), negating the claim of non-service, and that the proper officer considered all material on record, including E-way bill details and returns, before passing a reasoned order. 2. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the inordinate delay of approximately three years and eight months in filing the present petition?