M/S Universal Agencies vs. The State Of Biahr Through The Principal Secretary

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not entertainable. The Court referred to its own judgment dated 14.07.2026 in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The reasoning was based on the petitioner's indolent approach in not availing the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed the writ application after the statutory period for appeal had lapsed, with an inordinate and unexplained delay of 15 months from the date of the impugned order. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., emphasizing that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The Court also noted that entertaining a writ petition filed after such a significant delay would frustrate the legislative intent. Therefore, the Court found no occasion to enter into the merits of the case and dismissed the writ application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Universal Agencies, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the Bihar GST Act, 2017, and a consequent demand order for the period April-2021 to March-2022. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. They also challenged the show cause notice dated 18.9.2025, stating no personal hearing notice was issued. The petitioner received an audit notice GST ADT-01 on 13.01.2025, followed by FORM GST ADT-02 on 29.08.2025, demanding Rs. 4,25,353/-. A show cause notice under Section 73(1) was issued on 18.09.2025, replied to on 09.10.2025 via DRC-06, requesting a personal hearing. The impugned order, Form DRC-07 dated 31.12.2025, demanded a total of Rs. 4,43,510/-. The petitioner argued that notices were only uploaded on the GST portal under 'additional notices and orders' and not served through registered mail or other modes as required by Section 169 read with Section 146 of the BGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, passed under Section 73(9) of the Bihar GST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing, and whether the show cause notice dated 18.9.2025 is invalid for not issuing a personal hearing notice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. They contended that the show cause notice was also flawed for not issuing a personal hearing notice. Furthermore, they asserted that the notices and demand orders were only uploaded on the GST Portal under 'additional notices and orders' and not served through registered mail or other modes as required by Section 169 read with Section 146 of the BGST Act, 2017, rendering the proceedings violative of the Act, Rules, and natural justice. They relied on the judgment in CWJC No. 11260 of 2024 (Ultra Tech Cement Vrs. Union of India). Revenue's Arguments: The respondent department argued that an appeal lies before the learned Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, against the impugned order. They contended that the petitioner failed to avail this statutory remedy and filed the writ application after approximately 15 months, which is beyond the 3-month period for filing a statutory appeal. The department also argued that the petitioner admitted service of notice and submission of reply in Form DRC-06, and the Assessing Officer considered the reply in a reasoned order. They further submitted that acceptance of service on the common portal is a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the Bihar GST Act, 2017.