M/S Kunal Ett Udyog vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the present writ application was fully covered by the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench in M/s King Bricks versus State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 8948 of 2025). The reasoning was that in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for passing a fresh order after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order DRC-07 dated 02.01.2024 and the CGST demand notice dated 02.01.2024 were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority to undertake fresh steps for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and in light of the aforesaid judgment, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within six months. The order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account was also quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kunal ETT Udyog, a sole proprietorship firm engaged in the brick kiln business, filed a writ application challenging an order DRC-07 dated 02.01.2024 and a CGST demand notice dated 02.01.2024, both pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner also sought the release of their attached bank account. The petitioner argued that the tax assessment was made on an estimated basis. They relied on a previous order by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in M/s King Bricks versus State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 8948 of 2025), which had remanded a similar matter for fresh assessment after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing. The State's counsel did not dispute these submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order DRC-07 dated 02.01.2024 and the CGST demand notice dated 02.01.2024, issued for the assessment year 2019-20, are liable to be set aside on the ground that the assessment was made on an estimated basis without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, relating to principles of natural justice and assessment procedures under the GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The assessment was made on an estimated basis, and in a similar case (M/s King Bricks vs. State of Bihar), the Court had remanded the matter for fresh assessment after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the present writ application is covered by the aforesaid precedent. Revenue/State's contention: The State counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and agreed that the writ petition could be disposed of in light of the judgment in M/s King Bricks versus State of Bihar.