Sirajul Huda vs. The State Of Bihar

In present writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 27.12.2021, passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby petitioner has been held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,09,180/- against tax interest and penalty for period 2020-21, 2/7 under Section 73(9) of the Act. He further prays for quashing of demand notice issued in Form DRC-13 vide process number 116 dated 08.03.2025. The petitioner further prays for quashing of demand of penalty and interest that is Rs. 2,92,100/- as the tax component was paid voluntarily before the issuance of first show cause notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a proprietor of Sunny Tyre Shop located at Ranibagh, Simri Bhaktiyarpur, Saharsa, Bihar and is a registered person with GSTIN No. 10AILPH1546B1Z0. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for period 2020-2021, petitioner has voluntarily discharged the tax liability under Section 73(5) of CGST Act, 2017 and submits that Respondent No. 3, without verifying the details has initiated a proceeding of scrutiny under Section 61 of BGST/CGST Act 2017 and vide notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 16.09.2021 was asked to submit explanation till 15.10.2021. Further vide notice in GST DRC-01 dated 02.11.2021, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply by 07.12.2021 and no date of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No. 3 thereafter proceeded to determination of 3/7 petitioner’s liability and vide order dated 27.12.2021, determined an amount of Rs. 15,09,180/- against tax, interest and penalty for period 2020-21. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices as well as the impugned order, were uploaded only on the common portal and their service was not effected by any other mode. The petitioner, being a small trader, not well-versed in the use of digital system was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Respondent No. 4 vide process number 116 dated 08.03.2025, has issued recovery notice in Form DRC-13 and has asked the concerned Bank, Saharsa to freeze the account of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has voluntarily discharged the tax liability for the period 2020-21 and deposited tax of Rs. 6,08,540/- against CGST and Rs. 6,08,540/- against SGST on 15.04.2021 through GST DRC-03, which is also uploaded on the portal under Section 73(5) of CGST Act, 2017, much prior to issuance of scrutiny notice dated 16.09.2021. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits 4/7 that on 07.04.2025 it has filed an application for rectification inter alia stating that the entire tax liability had already been discharged prior to the issuance of the notice.

Per contra, Mr. Ravish Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Department, submits that against order dated 27.12.2021, passed by Respondent No. 3, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the provision of Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act 2017. The petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal and instead has filed the present writ application after a delay of almost five years. Even the rectification application filed by the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation.

Heard the parties and with due appreciation of respective submissions, this Court is of opinion that facts of the present case, is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.07.2026, passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M/s M K Traders Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.). Relevant paragraph 9, 9.1 and 9.2, is reproduced hereinbelow:- “9. 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 Appellate Authority on the ground of its competence to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The petitioner instead of filing appeal before learned GST 5/7 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.” “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 6/7 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.” “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 show cause notice dated 7/7 02.11.2021 and the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 was admittedly uploaded on the common portal which is a valid way of service under Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act.

The petitioner, in its indolent approach, has not filed the statutory appeal before the learned appellate authority and even filed the rectification order beyond the period of limitation. The present writ application has been preferred by the petitioner after an inordinate delay of 5 years and in terms of judgment passed by this court in M/s M K Traders Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra). The present writ application is not entertainable eschewing this Court to consider the present matter on merit and is dismissed.