M/S. R.K. And Co. Eat Bhatha vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s R.K. And Co. EAT BHATHA, a proprietorship concern engaged in brick manufacturing and trading, filed a writ petition challenging three orders passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. These orders pertained to the periods July 2017 to March 2018, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The petitioner admitted receiving show cause notices for the first two periods but claimed they could not respond due to their consultant linking their own contact details to the GST portal, and the petitioner's lack of education to access it. For the third period, the petitioner acknowledged the consultant sought an adjournment but claimed ignorance of reminders and the inability to file a response. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice, and were based on presumptions beyond the scope of the show cause notices.
Held
The Court held that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench in M/s King Bricks Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. The Court found that the impugned ex-parte orders, dated 30.12.2023 for July 2017-March 2018, and dated 07.05.2025 for 2021-22 and 2022-23, issued by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Bhabhua Circle, were passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing. The Court reasoned that this violated the principles of natural justice. The respondent department's counsel had no objection to the matter being remanded. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to undertake fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the BGST Act, 2017, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise was to be completed within six months. The Court also noted that if the petitioner did not cooperate, the department would be at liberty to proceed ex-parte.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for the periods July 2017-March 2018, 2021-22, and 2022-23, are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities passed the impugned orders without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They further contended that the orders were based on presumptions and went beyond the scope of the show cause notices, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner attributed their inability to respond to the show cause notices and reminders to their reliance on a consultant whose contact details were linked to the GST portal, and the petitioner's own lack of technical literacy. Revenue's Contention: The respondent department argued that proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to submit a reply. Consequently, the respondent authorities were compelled to pass the impugned orders under Section 73 based on the details available on the portal.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR) 2 20-07-2026 Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Prasad, learned GP07 for the respondent department.
In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned orders, viz order dated 30.12.2023, for 2/5 period July 2017 to March 2018, order dated 07.05.2025 for period 2021-22 and order dated 07.05.2025 for period 2022-23, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a proprietorship concern registered under the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 and is engaged in the business of brick manufacturing and trading from the principle place of business at Mouja Balipur, Chilbili Judra, Kaimur and is registered with State GST Department Bhabua Circle, Kaimur at Bhabua.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the proceedings for period 2017-18 and for period 2021-22, the petitoner admits the issuance of show cause notice in Form DRC-01, but submits that for these periods, the petitioner could not file any response as he was not aware of any such proceeding for the reason that the consultant of the petitioner who filed GST returns had linked his own mobile no. and E- mail id with the GST portal. The petitioner is not educated enough to file the return on his own or access the GST portal and is dependent on his consultant. He further submits that for period 2022-23, the petitioner admits that the consultant himself had filed the request for adjournment of the proceeding. The petitioner was also ignorant of the three reminders issued on 3/5 02.08.2024, 07.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 and has not filed any response to the impugned show cause notices.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have passed the impugned orders for the respective periods without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of presumptions which is contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act of 2017. He further submits that the impugned orders have been issued beyond the impugned show cause notices.
Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP 07 appearing for the respondent department submits that proper opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner to present its side, but the petitioner has failed to submit his reply. The petitioner has not responded to the respective impugned orders, compelling the respondent authorities to pass the impugned orders under Section 73 on the basis of details available on the portal.
Heard the parties. Upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case is squarely covered by the 4/5 Judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 8948 of 2025 in the matter of M/s King passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of M/s King Bricks Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ex-parte order dated 30.12.2023 for period July 2017 to March 2018, impugned order dated 07.05.2025 for period 2021-22 and impugned order dated 07.05.2025 for period 2022-23, issued by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Bhabua Circle, Bhabua are set aside and the respondents are directed to undertake fresh step strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the BGST Act, 2017, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 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 needless to state that in case the petitioner does not cooperate with the concerned official, the respondent department shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte, in accordance 5/5 with law.
Accordingly, the present writ application stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.
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.