M/S Patliputra Resource Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

In present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of notice dated 03.03.2025, issued under Section 74(5) of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 and further for quashing of order dated 23.06.2025, passed under Section 74 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 and the subsequent summary vide Form DRC-07 2/7 dated 23.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a registered person and is a supplier of services.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was issued with show cause notice dated 03.03.2025, under Section 74(5) of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 and further submits that a summary of show cause notice vide Form DRC-01 was issued on 04.03.2025, with filing of reply by 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025, with no personal hearing and it lacks the signature of the issuing authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent passed the summary of order vide Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.06.2025. It further submits that another order was issued by respondent on 23.06.2025 under Section 74(9) of GST Act, 2017 which was rectified and issuing authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice, subsequent summary notice and summary orders are in contravention of Rule 26(3) of Notification No. 3/2017 of Central Tax dated 19th June 2017, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and submits that an unsigned order and DRC-07 loses its efficacy and thereby making the entire 3/7 proceedings non-est.

Per contra, Shri Vivek Prasad, learned GP-07 appearing for respondent department, relying on paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, submits that in course of All India drive against fake registrations, it was found that one of the suppliers of the petitioner namely Ghosh Enterprises did not exist. It was also found that the petitioner has received input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 1,98,735/- during period 2023-24 from Ghosh Enterprises. Therefore, on detection of the fact that the petitioner was involved in receipt and transfer of fake and non- existent input tax credit, an intimation of tax ascertained dated 02.11.2024, in Form DRC-01A was served to the petitioner. On failure of the petitioner to respond, a show cause notice dated 03.03.2025, was served on it by the adjudicating authority which was also not responded by the petitioner. Subsequently, three reminders dated 09.04.2025, 13.05.2025 and 09.06.2025 have also been served on the petitioner, but to no avail, compelling the proper officer to pass the impugned order dated 23.06.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent department further submits that against the impugned order dated 23.06.2025, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal 4/7 available under the provision of Section 107 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017. But the petitioner has not availed, instead has filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 9 months from the date of passing of the impugned order. In terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Ltd. (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2819); to the extent, that the writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court in the statutory remedy of appeal stood foreclosed on the ground of limitation and prays for rejection of present writ application preferred by the petitioner.

Heard the parties and upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, we are of the opinion that the present case is covered vide Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.). The relevant paragraphs 9, 9.1, and 9.2 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

To start with issue no. (i)- the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2023, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act 2017 (Annexure P/3 of the writ application) has filed belated appeal on 02.04.2024 under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017, which was rejected by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground of its competence to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The petitioner instead of filing appeal before learned GST Tribunal under Section 112 of BGST Act 2017, on the ground of its non availability has filed the present writ application on 24.03.2026 i.e., 5/7 almost after a delay of three years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal reported in (2014)ISCC 603 has held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, writ petition should not be entertained ignoring said statutory dispensation. Even if contention of petitioner as regard belated communication of order and available alternative remedy being non available are accepted then also in the circumstances of delayed filing of writ application for more than 3 years, the present writ application is not entertainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2022 in the matter of CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [reported in (2020)19 SCC 681] in specific terms has restrained the High Court from entertaining writ application filed beyond the statutory period of appeal.

In present case, the petitioner contending belated communication of order has filed the present writ application after unexplained delay of 3 years. It is imperative to mention here that the legislature in its wi om has mandated the time bound compliances of its provisions. As per provision of Section 37 of BGST Act 2017, read with Rule 59 of BGST Rules 2017 mandates furnishing details of outward supplies in Form GSTR-l effected during a tax period on or before the 10 th day of the month succeeding the said tax period. The details of outward supplies furnished by the registered person under Section 37(1) is made available electronically to the recipients of such supplies in FORM GSTR-2A, as per Section 38 read with Rule 60 of the BGST Rules 2017. Further as per section 39 of BGST Act 2017 read with Rule 61 of the BGST Rules 2017 mandates filing of Returns in FORM GSTR-3B, on or before the 20 th day of the month succeeding such month. As per Rule 59 (2) of BGST Rules 2017, the details furnished in GSTR-1 may be amended in FORM GSTR-1A before filing of Return GSTR-3B. As per Section 44 of the BGST Act 2017, read with Rule 80 of the BGST Rules 2017, the registered person is required to furnish an annual return with audited financial statement in FORM GSTR-9 on or before the 31 st day December following the end of such financial year. It may be mentioned here that the registered person is allowed to rectify the omission or incorrect particulars furnished in FORM GSTR-3B before 6/7 30th November following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain. As per, provisions of Section 16(4) of the BGST Act 2017, a registered person is entitled to take Input Tax Credit upto 30th day of November following the end of financial years or furnishing of annual return whichever is earlier. The proper officer has to pass order, determining tax under Section 73(9) within 3 years and 5 years as per Section 74(10) of the BGST Act 2017, from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year. It is this order passed under Section 73 or 74 is made appellable under Section 107 of the BGST Act 2017, and requires its filing within 3 months from the date of communication. The legislature in its wi om by provision of Section 107(4) of the BGST Act 2017 has empowered the Appellate Authority to condone the delay of further one month in filing of appeal and Section 107(13) mandates him to decide the appeal within a period of one year from the date of its filing.

In our opinion, entertainment of writ application filed almost after 3 years of unexplained delay will frustrate very legislative intent and will render the legislative scheme otiose. Further adhering to recent Judgment dated 03.06.2021, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of the ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 447, to the extent that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution in exceptional circumstances of breach of fundamental right, violation of principles of natural justice, an excess of juri iction, a challenge to the vires of the statutes or delegated legislation, we are of the view that the present writ application filed beyond the statutory period of filing appeal may not be entertained in any case by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

In present case, it is the admitted position that show cause notices as well as three subsequent reminders were served to the petitioner on common portal, which is a valid 7/7 mode of service under Section 169 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner in its indolent approach has neither responded to the notices issued nor has filed appeal within the statutory period. Sofar as, petitioner’s recking the issue of digital signature with respect to the notices and on DRC-07, it is relevant that the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide Judgment dated 05.05.2023, passed in CWJC No. 1200 of 2023, (Rakesh Ranjan Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) has in detail consider the matter and referring Section 160 of CGST/BGST Act, 2017 has held that a mere omission to put the signature cannot lead to invalidation of the assessment proceeding.

Accordingly, the present writ application in terms of detailed judgment passed by this Court in (M.K. Traders Vs State of Bihar & Ors.), is not entertainable, eschewing this court to consider the present matter on merit and is dismissed.