Chandan Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court, upon considering the request, allowed the prayer. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also disposed of any pending interlocutory applications. The specific grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the notices and the order, including the contention that the order was not a speaking order and the challenge to the disallowance of input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST and BGST Act, were not adjudicated upon by the Court due to the withdrawal of the petition. Therefore, no findings were made on the merits of the issues framed.

Facts

The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, a proprietary concern, challenged notices and an order issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, Muzaffarpur. The impugned notice dated February 11, 2020, and an accompanying Form DRC-01 quantified tax, interest, and penalty at ₹14,43,340 for the period October 2018 to March 2019. Subsequently, an order dated March 2, 2020, in Form GST DRC-07 was passed for the same amount and period, which the petitioner alleged was not a speaking order. A further notice of demand dated January 15, 2021, in Form DRC-13, attaching the petitioner's bank account for recovery, was also challenged. The demand was primarily based on the disallowance of input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST and BGST Acts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 11.02.2020 issued by the respondent no.2, quantifying tax, interest, and penalty at ₹14,43,340 under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the period October 2018 to March 2019, is liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the respondent no.2, quantifying tax, interest, and penalty at ₹14,43,340 under the BGST Act for the period October 2018 to March 2019 in Form GST DRC-07, without passing a speaking order, is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the notice of demand dated 15.01.2021 in Form DRC-13, attaching the bank account of the petitioner for recovery of the disputed demand raised upon disallowance of input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST and BGST Act, is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a speaking order and that the demand was raised solely on the disallowance of input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST and BGST Act. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.