Gvk Jaipur Expressway PVT. LTD. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd., was issued a GST DRC-07 order on February 29, 2024, raising a demand of Rs. 3.39 crores for the year 2018-19. The order found that the petitioner did not discharge its GST liability. The petitioner did not challenge this order in appeal. Subsequently, on December 19, 2025, the petitioner's account was attached for a total demand of Rs. 14,06,54,640, including tax and interest. The petitioner claims they were unaware of the orders, alleging improper communication and placement on the GST portal, though no documentary proof was provided. They also filed a rectification application.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. judgment was misplaced. In the present case, neither an appeal was filed nor an attempt was made to file one; only a rectification application was filed. The Court found the petitioner's contentions of not having knowledge of the order or show cause notice to be incorrect. It reasoned that it is improbable for a company holding a GST number and filing regular monthly and annual returns not to be aware of orders passed under Section 74 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. The Court concluded that the petitioner demonstrated deliberate ignorance and therefore did not deserve any indulgence, as equity did not lie in their favor. The petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's claim of not being aware of the GST authorities' orders (show cause notice and DRC-07) is valid, considering the procedural history and the petitioner's continued operation under GST. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the show cause notice and DRC-07 orders were not properly communicated and placed on the GST Portal, leading to their lack of knowledge. They rely on the judgment in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 (Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) to argue that a person should not be left remediless if there are valid reasons for delay in filing an appeal. Revenue's arguments: The respondents do not appear to have presented specific arguments beyond the facts presented in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the petitioner's claims of ignorance are not credible given their continued GST registration and filing of returns.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 18/03/2026
The petitioner before us was issued GST DRC-07 order on 29.02.2024 and a demand was raised for Rs.3.39 crores. In the order it was specifically found that the taxpayer did not discharge due GST liability through DRC-13 for the year 2018-19 and accordingly, the demand as well as interest and penalty was imposed. The order was not challenged by the petitioner in appeal, therefore, vide order dated 19.12.2025, against the total
[2026:RJ-JP:11573-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3636/2026] demand including the tax and interest of Rs.14,06,54,640/-, the account of the petitioner was attached.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not come to know about the orders passed by the GST Authorities and has vaguely averred in his petition without any documentary proof that the show cause notice as well as DRC-07 orders were not properly communicated and placed on the GST Portal. It is stated that the same was communicated on the main dashboard of the Portal, although no documentary proof in this regard has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 (Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) dated 06.11.2025 wherein, this Court allowed the petitioner to file appeal holding that a person cannot be left remediless, if the time period of filing of appeal has expired and there are valid reasons for the delay in filing of appeal.
In the present case however, we find that the said judgment would have no application to the present case. In the facts of the present case, neither an appeal has been filed nor an attempt has been made to file an appeal. In fact, the petitioner has moved a rectification application only for seeking rectification of the order. Thus, we do not find that contentions of the petitioner having no knowledge of the order or the show cause notice are correct. It appears that there has been a deliberate ignorance shown towards the show cause notice and the order because it is not possible for a company not to have known about the order passed under
[2026:RJ-JP:11573-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3636/2026] Section 74 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’), more so, as it continues to hold the GST number and would, therefore, be filing regular monthly returns. Annual returns are also required to be filed as per the Act of 2017. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that it had no knowledge of the orders being passed for show cause notice and it is only thereafter the bank account has been attached that the petitioner has approached this Court. Equity, therefore, does not lie in its favor. On facts, we find that that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/12
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.