Ritesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ritesh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 11.08.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without prior opportunity or hearing. He claimed a mistake in entering Input Tax Credit (ITC) could be rectified by revising returns, or alternatively, that the amount entered in a different column should be considered actual ITC. The petitioner also sought a stay of demand and withdrawal of bank account attachment. The judgment notes the petitioner did not file an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act. The petitioner stated he was informed by the Assessing Officer that nothing would happen due to the pandemic. He acknowledged notices dated 08.03.2022 and 15.03.2022 were referred to in the order but claimed he had not received them, attributing potential non-receipt to his son deleting messages on the provided mobile number.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of the principles of natural justice. The averments in the writ petition itself indicated that the petitioner had been lax in following up on notices. The Court found no reason to believe that no notice was issued or hearing afforded. The Court also held that the petitioner could not invoke the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 for rectification of omissions or mistakes in returns after the statutory period for rectification had expired. Referring to Section 39(9) of the CGST Act, the Court noted that the proviso clearly interdicts any prayer for rectification after the due date, including the actual date of furnishing the relevant annual return. The Court concluded that the remedy provided under the statute had to be availed within the prescribed time, after which no such rectifications could be carried out. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 11.08.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of prior opportunity and hearing for the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to revise his GST returns to rectify an alleged incorrect entry of Input Tax Credit (ITC) or have the amount entered in a different column considered as actual ITC, despite the statutory limitations for such rectification? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording him a hearing, violating natural justice. He claimed an error in ITC entry could be rectified by revising returns or by considering the amount in another column as actual ITC. He also sought a stay of demand and withdrawal of bank account attachment. He stated he was not properly served with notices. Respondent's Arguments: The State, through the Assistant Commissioner of BGST, implicitly argued against the petitioner's claims by relying on statutory provisions. The Court noted the Government Pleader's reference to Sub-Section (9) of Section 39 of the CGST Act, which provides for rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars in returns within a specified time frame, and the proviso that interdicts such rectification after the due date or the actual date of furnishing the annual return.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, Section 39(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 15-05-2023
The above writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari against the order dated 11.08.2022, passed under Section-73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order was passed without giving prior opportunity to the petitioner and without affording a hearing; clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, on the above contention, alleges 2/4 that there is an apparent mistake in the petitioner having wrongly entered input tax credit (ITC), which can be cured with the revision of returns. The petitioner prays for an opportunity to revise the returns. It is also claimed that, if such a relief is not granted, then the tax authorities be directed to consider the amount entered in a different column as the actual amount of ITC. The petitioner also seeks a stay of the demand and withdrawal of the attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner. The petitioner obviously has not filed an appeal against the order which remedy is available under the BGST Act as per Section-107. In fact, the petitioner claims in the writ petition itself that after filing the returns, the petitioner had received a message from respondent No.2, the Assessing Officer, and on approaching him, he was told that nothing will happen due to the pandemic situation. It is also stated that thereafter in the order two notices dated 08.03.2022 and 15.03.2022 were referred to. The petitioner does not deny the same, but only says that if it was sent, he has not received it. It is also stated that the mobile number entered in the GST Portal of the petitioner belongs to the son of the petitioner, who was living in Patna and if the message had come in his mobile, it would have been deleted by his son.
3/4 In fact, the averments of the petitioner would indicate that he has been lax in following up on the notices issued by the Tax Authorities. The mobile number in which the messages come has been given by the petitioner to the Tax Authorities and he cannot claim ignorance on the ground that his son, who had the said mobile number, would have deleted the messages. This Court finds no reason to countenance the grounds taken by the petitioner or find that no notice was issued to him nor a hearing afforded; from the averments in the writ petition itself. The extraordinary remedy under Article-226 does not inure to the benefit of the assesses, who are not diligent in raising their claims before the appellate authorities. The learned Government Pleader also specifically refers to Sub-Section(9) of Section-39, providing for the time within which any omission or incorrect particular noticed by an assessee in the return furnished can be rectified. The proviso under Section 39(9) clearly interdicts any prayer for rectification after the due date, inter alia of the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return. The petitioner cannot invoke such remedy before this Court and the contention taken that there is no method by which omissions or mistakes can be rectified as per the Statute cannot be sustained. The remedy provided, however, has to be availed in the time 4/4 provided, after which there could be no such rectifications carried out. The writ petition, hence, stands dismissed. sharun/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 18.05.2023 Transmission Date N/A
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.