Maa Durga Trading Corporation vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application as having become infructuous. The Court noted the submissions made by both parties, particularly the petitioner's willingness to deposit the outstanding interest amounts for June and July 2020, totaling Rs. 12,948/- and Rs. 6,474/- respectively. The revenue's counsel also agreed to this course of action, stating that the only remaining dispute was with respect to the interest. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit these interest amounts within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that when a dispute concerning a tax demand can be amicably resolved by the petitioner agreeing to pay the outstanding interest, and the revenue accepts this, the writ petition can be disposed of as infructuous upon compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Durga Trading Corporation, through its proprietor Ashish Kumar Choudhary, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.09.2020, uploaded on 15.09.2020. The petitioner contended that no valid notice under Section 46 of the GST Act was served prior to the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner claimed to have learned about the assessment order only in October 2024. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Madhepura, admitted in their counter affidavit that the petitioner filed returns for June and July 2020 within 30 days of service of demand notices. While the assessed tax demands were withdrawn, interest demands remained. To resolve the dispute, the petitioner offered to deposit the interest amounts of Rs. 12,948/- for June 2020 and Rs. 6,474/- for July 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether a valid notice under Section 46 of the Goods and Services Tax Act was served on the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 14.09.2020? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that no valid notice under Section 46 of the GST Act was ever received, and they only became aware of the assessment order in October 2024. They relied on paragraph 6 of their writ application stating non-receipt of notice. Revenue's argument: The revenue, through the Assistant Commissioner, admitted in paragraph 18 of their counter affidavit that the petitioner filed returns for June and July 2020 within 30 days of service of demand notices. The revenue's counsel submitted that the only dispute pertains to the interest amounts, and since the petitioner is now willing to pay these amounts, the writ application can be disposed of.