M/S Urmila Petroleum Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

In present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order and demand notice issued in Form DRC-07 dated 11.09.2024 whereby the tax, interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 9,80,566/- has been imposed under Section 74 of the BGST Act, 2017 for period March 2024, without giving proper opportunity of hearing and producing supporting 2/7 documents related to its claim. The petitioner further prays for direction to restrain the respondent no. 3 from taking any coercive action for recovery of the amount in demand and to de- freeze/de-attach the bank account of the petitioner’s company, if any.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a Private Limited Company and is a registered person, having GSTIN No- 10AACCU3410B1ZD in Patna Special Circle, Patna.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 issued a notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 09.07.2024, whereby he would submit his reply to the fact that it had done transaction with non-existent supplier and was asked either to pay the amount of demand till 09.08.2024 or appear before the undersigned with all related documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of notice dated 09.07.2024, petitioner has submitted its reply on 06.09.2024 through common portal and explained that during the financial year 2023-24, the petitioner has neither received any inward supply nor availed/utilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) with respect to seller namely, M/s Singh Traders and thus in absence of any credit claimed by the petitioner pertaining to 3/7 the seller, question of reversal does not arise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3, without considering the explanation dated 06.09.2024 filed by the petitioner and also without giving opportunity of personal hearing and producing documents related to the claim of petitioner, has passed order dated 11.09.2024 whereby the demand to the tune Rs. 9,80,566/- has been imposed in exercise of power under Section 74 of the BGST Act, 2017. 7. Mr. Ravish Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent department, submits that against impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the respondent Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has not availed the same and instead has filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 11 months.

Learned counsel for the respondent department, relying on Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kilne Consumer Health Care Limited AIR 2020 SC 2819, submits that the writ application should not be entertained where the statutory appeal stands foreclosed due to 4/7 limitation.

Learned counsel for the respondent department, referring paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit on merit, submits that the petitioner has furnished its reply online in Form DRC-06 wherein it has contended that, though the Input Tax Credit from Singh Traders was reflected in its GSTR-2A yet the same was not taken by petitioner in its books of accounts. Though the petitioner claimed so, it did not produce its books of accounts to corroborate that the ITC from Singh Traders (which is reflected in his GSTR-2A) was not taken by it in its books of accounts. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority has considered, in detail the reply filed by the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of its contention.

Heard the parties and on appreciation of the respective submission, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is covered by Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.) The relevant paragraph 9 is reproduced hereinbelow-

To start with issue no. (i)- the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2023, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act 2017 (Annexure P/3 of the writ application) has filed belated appeal on 02.04.2024 under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017, which was rejected by the learned 5/7 Appellate Authority on the ground of its competence to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The petitioner instead of filing appeal before learned GST Tribunal under Section 112 of BGST Act 2017, on the ground of its non availability has filed the present writ application on 24.03.2026 i.e., almost after a delay of three years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal reported in (2014)ISCC 603 has held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, writ petition should not be entertained ignoring said statutory dispensation. Even if contention of petitioner as regard belated communication of order and available alternative remedy being non available are accepted then also in the circumstances of delayed filing of writ application for more than 3 years, the present writ application is not entertainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2022 in the matter of CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [reported in (2020)19 SCC 681] in specific terms has restrained the High Court from entertaining writ application filed beyond the statutory period of appeal.

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 6/7 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 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.

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 7/7 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, admittedly, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice dated 09.07.2024 to which it has replied on 06.09.2024 in Form DRC-06 without any documentary evidence substantiating its contention which led the Adjudicating Authority to pass the impugned order dated 11.09.2024. As per the provision of Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal which it has not availed and instead, has filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 11 months from the date of passing of the impugned order.

Accordingly, in terms of Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M.K. Traders Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), the present writ application, on the ground of delay, is not entertainable, eschewing this Court to consider the present matter on merit and is dismissed.