Pan INDIA Infra Project PVT. LTD. Ranhill Utilities Sdn Bhd Consortium vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner

Original PDF →

CWJC/1111/2025HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01128758202422 July 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA,MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Pan India Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Ranhill Utilities SDN BHD Consortium, is challenging an order dated 28.08.2024 and a summary order in GST DRC-07, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Bhagalpur Circle - 2, under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of input tax credit (ITC) carried forward from the financial year 2018-19 to 2019-20. For the financial year 2018-19, an order dated 28.04.2024 had questioned the utilization of excess ITC, imposing a demand of Rs. 3,99,98,578/-. An appeal against this order was rejected. The petitioner carried forward the remaining unutilized ITC to 2019-20, which was reflected in its GSTR-9. The impugned order for 2019-20 rejected this carried-forward ITC on the grounds that the ITC for 2018-19 had already been disallowed and appealed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order dated 28.08.2024, which it had not availed. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice and was given an opportunity of hearing. It found no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case for entertaining the writ application given the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court did not decide on the merits of the ITC claim itself. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court corrected the date of the impugned order to 28.08.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes could deny the benefit of input tax credit carried forward from the financial year 2018-19 to 2019-20, when an assessment order for 2018-19 had already been passed and appealed against, under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the input tax credit that remained unutilized in the financial year 2018-19 was correctly carried forward to the financial year 2019-20, as disclosed in its annual return (GSTR-9). They contended that the denial of this carried-forward ITC by the respondent no. 2 was erroneous. Revenue's Contention: The respondent department argued that since the petitioner's availment/utilization of ITC for the financial year 2018-19 had already been rejected by an order dated 28.04.2024, and the subsequent appeal was also rejected, the petitioner was not entitled to carry forward any ineligible ITC to the financial year 2019-20. They questioned how rejected ITC could be carried forward.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 73(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1111 of 2025 ====================================================== Pan India Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Ranhill Utilities SDN BHD Consortium having its place of business at Anand Villa, banshi Kunj, Dr. R.P. Road, Bhagalpur through its authorized signatory namely Prabhakar Kumar Singh male aged about 38 years son of Trilok Singh resident of East Nandgola, Post - Madho Mills, P.S. - Malsalami, Patna City, District- Patna, Bihar - 800008. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Bhagalpur Circle - 2, Bhagalpur (2019- 2020). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv. : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Adv. : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv. : Mr. Mukund Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. : Ms. Amrita Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (07) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR) 6 22-07-2026 Heard Sri Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Prasad, learned GP07 for the respondent department.

In present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.08.2024(wrongly stated as 28.04.2024 in the prayer portion in writ application) and summary of order issued in GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e., Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Bhagalpur Circle 2, Bhagalpur under Section 73 of CGST/BGST Act, 2017. It further prays for declaration that the 2/5 respondent no.2 could not have denied the benefit of input tax credit carried forward by the petitioner from the financial year 2018-19 to 2019-20. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is engaged in the business of execution of work contracts for government departments, public sector undertakings and similar such organisations and is a registered person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for period 2019-20, the respondent no.2 has initiated a proceeding under Section 73 of the BGST Act, 2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the period 2018-19, the petitioner has filed its return and in the annual return has disclosed the figures of Input Tax Credit earned to its credit, utilized, and the figure of Input Tax Credit carried forward to the financial year 2019-20. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the period 2018-19, the Assessing Authority vide order dated 28.04.2024, questioned the utilization of excess ITC and imposed Rs. 3,99,98,578/- towards tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner (Annexure P-2 to the writ application).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2024, the petitioner has 3/5 preferred an appeal which was rejected by the first Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the remaining Input Tax Credit which could not be utilized by the petitioner in the financial year 2018-19 was carried forward to the financial year 2019-20, and the figure of the balance Input Tax Credit so carried forward was shown in Column 8(c) of the annual return in Form GSTR-9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 initiated proceeding under Section 73 for period 2019-20 by issuance of show cause notice in form DRC-01 dated 29.05.2024 to which the petitioner has filed a detailed reply in Form DRC-06 dated 22.08.2024. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 has passed final order dated 28.08.2024 in terms of Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and issued a summary order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024, disputing and rejecting the claim of the petitioner made in respect of input tax credit carried forward from financial years 2018-19 to 2019-20 on the ground that an order of assessment with respect to financial year 2018-19 has already been passed in the case of the petitioner, against which the 4/5 petitioner has already preferred an appeal which has been rejected and is in course of further consultation with tax consultants to pursue further remedy.

11.

Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP 07 appearing for the respondent department submits that for period 2018-19, the submission of the petitioner with respect to availment/utilisation of the input tax credit has already been rejected by order dated 28.04.2024 and has been disallowed. He poses a question that once the issue of utilisation/availment of ITC, compared to that of entitlement, has been rejected, then how the same can be carried forward for the next financial year. The learned Appellate Authority has already rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 28.04.2024 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for carrying forward the ineligible ITC to the period in question i.e., 2019-20. 12. Heard the parties. In the present case, proper opportunity of hearing has been adduced to the petitioner. The petitioner has already replied to the show cause notices and after due consideration of its reply, the proper officer has passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2024, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ application within the statutory period for filing of appeal. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of 5/5 appeal against the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 which it has not availed and instead has filed the present writ application. There is no violation of principal of natural justice. The petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case carving out any exception, so that the present writ application may be entertained with availability of alternative remedy.

13.

Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, if so advised, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court has only recorded the submissions of the respective parties and has made no observation on merits, but has corrected the date of the impugned order to be 28.08.2024 in place of 28.04.2024. Ashwin/- (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.