Triguna Nand Singh vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure – P-1 series) and the order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure – P-2 series). The Court found that the concerned officer had committed an error while issuing the notice to the petitioner, as indicated by the State counsel's submission on instruction. The reasoning was based on the admission of error by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that notices and orders issued under the GST regime must be accurate in identifying the assessee and must comply with procedural requirements like proper service and digital signatures. The Court reserved liberty for the official respondents to take action in accordance with law if any action is to be taken against the petitioner or Tarunjay Kumar Singh. The issue regarding the order of respondent no.6 was implicitly set aside as part of the overall relief granted.

Facts

The petitioner, Triguna Nand Singh, challenged a show cause notice dated September 30, 2023, and an ex parte order dated December 29, 2023, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Saran-2 (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner argued that the notice and order were issued for the tax period 2017-18, but were in the name of a different person, Tarunjay Kumar Singh, with a different GST number (10AXMPS1820K2ZH). The petitioner also contended that the show cause notice was only uploaded on the portal and not served through other modes as required by Section 169 of the Act, and that the ex parte order lacked a digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. Additionally, the petitioner sought to quash an order by Respondent No. 6, the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, which withheld payment for executed contracts based on instructions from Respondent No. 4.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023, issued under Rule 100(2) and 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is invalid due to being issued in the name of a different person (Tarunjay Kumar Singh) and not served through prescribed modes under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the ex parte order dated 29.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside due to infirmities in the show cause notice, including a handwritten notice with a different description of the person and tax liabilities, and the absence of a mandatory digital signature as per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were fundamentally flawed as they were issued in the name of Tarunjay Kumar Singh, not the petitioner, and lacked proper service and mandatory digital signatures. They relied on the provisions of Section 169 and Rule 26(3). Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel, on instruction, submitted that the concerned officer had committed an error while issuing the notice to the petitioner.