Sri Narayan Transport Corporation vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Narayan Transport Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna West Division. This order imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,96,837/-. The proceedings originated from an inspection on 14.6.2019, which revealed discrepancies. A show cause notice was issued on 21.6.2019 under sections 122 and 129(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act). The petitioner filed a reply on 29.6.2019. The petitioner contended that the initial notice was not issued by an authority of the required rank and that the summary of the order-cum-demand notice lacked an authority's signature. The State argued that the petition should be dismissed due to the lack of a framed question of law and the availability of an alternative statutory appeal remedy.

Held

The Court held that the show cause notice dated 21.6.2019, issued under sections 122 and 129(4) of the BGST Act, was indeed issued under the signature of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Investigation Bureau, Patna West Division, Patna. Therefore, it was in accordance with the law as required by Section 67 of the BGST Act. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 16.7.2019, which was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. This order detailed the issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner's reply, and the hearing conducted, leading to a reasoned penalty imposition. The Court noted that the petitioner was represented by local representatives, including Ramesh Rai, during the hearing. Regarding the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, the Court found that its lack of signature was due to it being auto-populated. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 21.6.2019, issued under sections 122 and 129(4) of the BGST Act, was in accordance with the statutory provisions, specifically Section 67 of the BGST Act, which requires issuance by an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner? 2. Whether the summary of the order-cum-demand notice dated 17.7.2019 is vitiated due to the absence of an authority's signature? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not in accordance with Section 67 of the BGST Act as it was not issued by an officer of the prescribed rank. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the summary of the order-cum-demand notice lacked the signature of any authority. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the writ petition was maintainable for dismissal as the petitioner had not framed any question of law and possessed an alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal. The State also noted that the petitioner did not have a GSTIN number, but Ramesh Rai, the authorized signatory, did.