Rohit Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not entertainable due to the unexplained delay in filing. It relied on its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 (M.K. Traders Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) dated 14.07.2026. The Court observed that the petitioner had neither responded to the show cause notice nor filed an appeal under Section 107. Regarding the non-compliance with Section 75(4), the Court opined that this provision is applicable only to those who have satisfactorily replied to the show cause notice, and a co-ordinate bench had interpreted this in the case of Barhonia Engicon Private Limited. The Court further cited Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. to emphasize that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum exists, especially when filed beyond the statutory period of appeal. The Court concluded that entertaining a writ application filed after an unexplained delay of approximately three years would frustrate the legislative intent. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ application without considering the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar Singh, a proprietorship concern engaged in work contracts, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.07.2024 and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan (respondent no.4). This order, for the period 2019-20, imposed a demand of Rs. 45,53,966/- towards tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 56 of 2023 dated 28.12.2023, which extended the time limit for issuing orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, arguing it was beyond the scope of Section 168A. The petitioner claimed to have filed returns under the composition scheme and in Form GSTR-3B. A show cause notice dated 04.05.2024 was issued but allegedly not complied with by the petitioner. The impugned order was passed based on the certificate of deduction of income tax at source.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 26.07.2024, passed by respondent no.4 for the period 2019-20 under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is vitiated for want of compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting a hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act, especially when an adverse decision was contemplated. 2. Whether Notification No. 56 of 2023 dated 28.12.2023, extending the time limit under Section 73(10) of the Act for issuance of orders for the period 2019-20, is ultra vires the powers conferred under Section 168A of the Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 75(4) mandates a hearing before any adverse decision, even if no specific request is made, and non-compliance vitiates the assessment order. They also argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the statutory period and that Notification No. 56 of 2023 is beyond the scope of Section 168A. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing but failed to reply to the show cause notice due to indolence. They further submitted that the issue of limitation concerning Notification No. 56 of 2023 has been settled by this Court in CWJC No. 4180 of 2024, which declared the notification intra-vires. The respondent also raised the issue of delay in filing the writ petition, stating that an appeal under Section 107 was available and the writ was filed after an inordinate delay of over 2 years.