M/S Kunal Bricks Gstin- 10Arkps1119H1Z3 And Its Office At Dulma 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 Court noted 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. Consequently, the Court set aside the Show Cause Notice, Summary of Show Cause Notice, Demand Order, and Summary of Demand Order. 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 and Services Tax Act, 2017, and in light of the aforesaid judgment, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A final order was to be passed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court did not expressly decide on the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT as the matter was remitted.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kunal Bricks, filed a writ application challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2024, a Summary of Show Cause Notice of the same date, a Demand Order dated 29.08.2024 under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, and a Summary of Demand Order dated 29.08.2024. These actions by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Motihari Circle, related to the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were issued without digital signatures, without affording a personal hearing, without a pre-show cause notice (DRC-01A), and were time-barred under Sections 73(9) and 73(10). The petitioner also sought to quash Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, which extended the time limit under Section 73(10).

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice, Summary of Show Cause Notice, Demand Order, and Summary of Demand Order were validly issued without digital signatures, an opportunity for personal hearing, and a pre-show cause notice (DRC-01A)? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under the BGST/CGST Act, 2017). 2. Whether the Demand Order and related notices were barred by limitation under Section 73(9) and 73(10) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, and if Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 was validly issued? (Question of law, concerning statutory time limits and the validity of extension notifications). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders were issued without digital signatures, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, without issuance of a pre-show cause notice in Form DRC-01A, and were barred by limitation under Section 73(9) and 73(10). They relied on a coordinate bench's decision in M/s King Bricks versus State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 8948 of 2025) where a similar matter was remanded. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the State 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.