M/S Uttam Ent Udyog vs. State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Uttam Ent Udyog, a proprietary concern engaged in brick construction, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan. This order adjudicated the petitioner's tax liability for the period 2018-19 to the tune of Rs. 5,59,884. The petitioner contended that the assessment was made on an estimated basis without cogent evidence. The State respondents acknowledged that the case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the impugned ex-parte demand order dated 15.04.2024 and the summary order in form GST DRC-07 for the financial year 2018-19, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan, were quashed. The Court reasoned that the assessment was made on an estimated basis without proper evidence, which was in violation of the BGST Act. The Court directed the respondents to undertake fresh steps strictly in accordance with the BGST Act, providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing a final order. This exercise was to be completed within six months. The Court also directed the immediate release of the attached bank account. The ratio is that an ex-parte assessment without proper evidence and opportunity of hearing is unsustainable and must be set aside, requiring a fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication of tax liability for the period 2018-19 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan, based merely on an estimate and without cogent evidence, is in violation of Sections 7 and 9 of the Bihar Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the assessment was arbitrary and based on an estimate, lacking scientific evidence, thus violating Sections 7 and 9 of the BGST Act. They relied on prior judgments of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7580 of 2025 and C.W.J.C. No. 7616 of 2025, asserting their case was covered by these precedents. Revenue's Argument: The State respondents conceded that the writ petition was covered by the aforementioned judgments and agreed that the present application could be disposed of in line with those earlier orders.
Sections Cited
Section 7, Section 9
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA) 2 14-07-2026
Heard Mr. D.V. Pathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. 7 for the State.
The present writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the adjudicating authority adjudicating the tax liability for the period 2018-19 to the tune of Rs. 5,59,884 /-.
The petitioner is registered as a dealer, who is engaged in construction of bricks.
Mr. Pathay, learned counsel submits that 2/3 assessment / adjudication of tax liability has been done by the respondent no. 2 / Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan merely on the basis of estimate and without any cogent and scientific evidence or material available on record, which is in violation of Section 7 & 9 of the Bihar Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “BGST”). He further submits that writ petition is fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7580 of 2025 and C.W.J.C. No. 7616 of 2025. 5. Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that it is true that the writ petition is covered by the aforesaid judgments and the present writ application may be disposed off in line with the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court earlier.
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and the fact this case is covered by the aforesaid judgment, the impugned ex-parte demand order dated 15.04.2024 along with summary order in form GST DRC -07 for the financial year 2018-19 issued / passed by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan are quashed.
The respondents are directed to undertake fresh steps strictly in accordance with the provision contained under the BGST and after providing an adequate opportunity of 3/3 hearing to the petitioner, the final order shall be passed. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not co-operate with the concerned officials, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte.
It goes without saying that since now the impugned order has been set aside, consequently, the bank account which has allegedly been attached by the authority, shall be released immediately.
With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present writ application stands disposed off.
praful/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U
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.