M/S Roop Alankar Jeweller (Fy 2018-19) vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Roop Alankar Jeweller, a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale and retail trading of ornaments, filed a writ application challenging an ex-parte Demand Order dated 06.03.2024. This order, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle-1, created a demand of Rs. 1,14,123/- in tax, Rs. 1,25,325/- in interest, and Rs. 40,000/- in penalty for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and its reminders were not effectively communicated, having been uploaded only in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal, and that no opportunity for personal hearing was provided, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The revenue argued that notices were served on the registered email and mobile number, and uploaded on the common portal under the "Additional Notices" tab, which is the standard procedure.

Held

The Court held that the service of the show cause notice and subsequent reminders through the common portal, registered email, and SMS on the registered mobile number constituted sufficient compliance with Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner, in an "indolent approach," neither filed a reply nor an appeal against the impugned order. Instead, the petitioner filed the present writ application after a delay of almost two years. Citing judgments from the Supreme Court and its own previous decisions, the Court found the writ application, filed with such unexplained delay, to be not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that entertaining such delayed writ applications would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. Therefore, the Court declined to consider the matter on merits and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte Demand Order dated 06.03.2024, issued under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the effective communication of the show cause notice and the denial of personal hearing, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the service of the show cause notice and its reminders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal, along with SMS and email intimations to the registered particulars, constitutes proper service under Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, as contended by the revenue? 3. Whether the writ application, filed after a significant delay of approximately three years from the impugned order, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the existence of alternative statutory remedies, as raised by the revenue and discussed by the Court?