M/S K.P. Motors vs. The State Of Bihar

In present writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing of demand order under Section 75(12) of BGST/CGST Act 2017, passed by the Respondent No. 4, demanding interest of Rs. 3,39,691/- for period 2018-2019, without issuance of show cause notice or intimation notice in violation of Section 73 2/6 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the proprietor of shop having name M/s K.P. Motors, a proprietorship firm having GSTIN:- 10ABYPP1560B1ZW and is engaged in the business of sale of two-wheeler TVS Motor cycles and services.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any intimation of show cause notice under Section 73(1), an ex-parte order of demand under Section 75(12) was passed by the Respondent No.

Interest is not liability of the petitioner as he has discharged its tax liability using electronic credit ledger and had sufficient balance in electronic credit ledger before the date of filing of return for the impugned period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order as well as the notices were uploaded on the common portal which is against the spirit of Section 169 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 and impugned order was passed without grant of opportunity of personal hearing.

Prayer of the petitioner is contested by Sri Vivek Prasad, learned GP-7 for the Respondent Department. Relying on paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, he submits that notice 3/6 as well as the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 was served to the petitioner on common portal, which as per terms of Section 169 of BGST/CGST Act 2017 is a valid mode of service.

Referring the provision of Section 169 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, he submits that the legislature in its wi om has provided the service of notice by any one of the following six modes and respondent Department has served the notice on common portal and in terms of Rule 142 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017, uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent Department further submits that when a notice order is uploaded on the GST portal, the system automatically sends a message to the taxpayer through SMS as well as on his registered e-mail address and therefore the grievance of the petitioner is baseless as it cannot feign ignorance of notice served on it through the GST portal.

Learned counsel for the Respondent Department further submits that against the impugned order dated 24.02.2020, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of BGST/CGST Act 2017 which it has not availed and filed the present writ application after a delay of almost six years and on this account the present writ application is fit to be 4/6 rejected on the ground of delay.

Heard the parties and upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is covered by the judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2024 (M/s M K Traders Vs State of Bihar & Ors). The relevant paragraph 9.1 and 9.2 are reproduced hereinbelow:- “9.1 In present case, the petitioner contending belated communication of order has filed the present writ application after unexplained delay of 3 years. It is imperative to mention here that the legislature in its wi om has mandated the time bound compliances of its provisions. As per provision of Section 37 of BGST Act 2017, read with Rule 59 of BGST Rules 2017 mandates furnishing details of outward supplies in Form GSTR-l effected during a tax period on or before the 10th day of the month succeeding the said tax period. The details of outward supplies furnished by the registered person under Section 37(1) is made available electronically to the recipients of such supplies in FORM GSTR-2A, as per Section 38 read with Rule 60 of the BGST Rules 2017. Further as per section 39 of BGST Act 2017 read with Rule 61 of the BGST Rules 2017 mandates filing of Returns in FORM GSTR-3B, on or before the 20th day of the month succeeding such month. As per Rule 59 (2) of BGST Rules 2017, the details furnished in GSTR-1 may be amended in FORM GSTR-1A before filing of Return GSTR-3B. As per Section 44 of the BGST Act 2017, read with Rule 80 of the BGST Rules 2017, the registered person is required to furnish an annual return with audited financial statement in FORM GSTR-9 on or before the 31st day December following the end of such financial year. It may be mentioned here that the registered person is allowed to rectify the omission or incorrect particulars furnished in FORM GSTR-3B before 30th November following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain. As per, provisions of Section 16(4) of the BGST Act 2017, a registered person 5/6 is entitled to take Input Tax Credit upto 30th day of November following the end of financial years or furnishing of annual return whichever is earlier. The proper officer has to pass order, determining tax under Section 73(9) within 3 years and 5 years as per Section 74(10) of the BGST Act 2017, from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year. It is this order passed under Section 73 or 74 is made appellable under Section 107 of the BGST Act 2017, and requires its filing within 3 months from the date of communication. The legislature in its wi om by provision of Section 107(4) of the BGST Act 2017 has empowered the Appellate Authority to condone the delay of further one month in filing of appeal and Section 107(13) mandates him to decide the appeal within a period of one year from the date of its filing.” “9.2 In our opinion, entertainment of writ application filed almost after 3 years of unexplained delay will frustrate very legislative intent and will render the legislative scheme otiose. Further adhering to recent Judgment dated 03.06.2021, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of the ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 447, to the extent that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution in exceptional circumstances of breach of fundamental right, violation of principles of natural justice, an excess of juri iction, a challenge to the vires of the statutes or delegated legislation, we are of the view that the present writ application filed beyond the statutory period of filing appeal may not be entertained in any case by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”

In present case, the impugned order was passed on 24.02.2020. Petitioner for the month of May 2018 to August 2018 and February 2019 to March 2019 has belatedly filed the monthly returns in GSTR-3B, but has not paid any interest amount under Section 51 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017. The 6/6 belated filing of return as per the provision of Section 50(1) of BGST/CGST Act 2017 attracts the payment of interest. The petitioner has not filed any statutory appeal under Section 107 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order dated 24.02.2020. Further the petitioner in its indolent approach, has preferred the present writ application after an inordinate delay of almost six years.

Accordingly, in terms of the judgment passed by this court in the matter of M/S M K Traders Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), the present writ application is not entertainable on ground of delay and is dismissed.