Kishan Ghar vs. The Union Of INDIA

In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 27.06.2024 for period 2019-2020 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e., Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea, Circle-2, Purnea, Bihar and further for quashing of summary of order in Form DRC-07 dated 28.06.2024 for period 2019-2020 2/5 raising a demand of Rs. 10,82,600/- against tax, interest and penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner runs a proprietorship firm under the trade name “Kishan Ghar” and is engaged in the business of fertilisers, seeds, pesticides and agro-chemicals and other chemicals, having its place of business at Purnea, Bihar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the financial year 2019-20, it has been subjected to an ex-parte assessment order, with no show cause notice or intimation ever validly served prior to passing of impugned order and, in last week of June 2025, while inquiring about tax record, the petitioner came to know informally that a demand has been raised against him. He further submits that no attempt was made by the respondent to serve show cause notice or order by any other modes permissible under Section 169 such as post, E-mail or any other electronic means. In the absence of valid service of show cause notice, the entire assessment proceeding is vitiated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order takes into account that the petitioner has availed ITC on purchases from suppliers who were allegedly non-operational and dealing in cement, pipes and fittings. The 3/5 petitioner has already discharged the applicable output tax liability by reflecting correctly in GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B returns.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it faced medical treatment and hardship during the financial year 2023-24 and 2024-25 and came to know about the order and show cause notice in June 2025 on the common portal only and prays for allowing the prayer made by way of present writ application.

The prayer of the petitioner is contested by Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP07 for the respondent department and submits that notice dated 20.02.2024 in Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal with the show cause notice. Again on 04.04.2024, a reminder notice was sent to the petitioner on his non-appearance, but the petitioner has failed to submit his reply in DRC-06 nor the petitioner or his representative has appeared to present his side, compelling the respondent authority to pass the order ex-parte. He submits that ample opportunity of hearing had been adduced to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent department further submits that against the impugned order dated 27.06.2024, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal 4/5 under Section 107 of the CGST\BGST Act, 2017, but instead has filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 15 months from the passing of the order under Section 73(9) of the CGST\BGST Act, 2017 and the writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

Heard the parties. After due appreciation of the respective submissions, this Court is of the view that the fact of the present case is similar to the Judgment dated 14.07.2026, passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs State of Bihar & Ors.). The relevant paragraph 9.2 is reproduced hereinbelow-

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 petitioner was validly served with the show cause notice in Form DRC-01 on common portal 5/5 under Section 169 of the CGST\BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner in its indolent approach, has failed to file its submission in Form DRC-06, compelling the respondent authority to pass the ex- parte order dated 27.06.2024 which admittedly was uploaded on common portal. The petitioner has not availed the available remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST\BGST Act, 2017 and filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 15 months from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 under Section 73(9) of the CGST\BGST Act, 2017. 11. Accordingly, the present writ application, in light of the Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M.K. Traders (Supra), is dismissed on the ground of delay.