M/S Maa Buildcon Through Its Partner Rohini Prasad Patel vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted the revenue's submission that the order-in-original was passed under Section 74(I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, digitally signed, and uploaded on the portal. Consequently, the Court held that the controversies raised by the petitioner were liable to be decided in an appeal to be filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding non-communication of the order-in-original. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Buildcon, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 01.10.2025. This communication, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, requested the attachment of the petitioner's bank account for recovery of GST dues, pursuant to an order-in-original dated 03.02.2025. The petitioner contended that the order-in-original was neither uploaded nor communicated to them, and they only became aware of it when a letter dated 30.07.2025 was issued, leading to the attachment of their bank account. The revenue, represented by Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, argued that the order-in-original was passed under Section 74(I) of the CGST Act, 2017, digitally signed and uploaded on the portal by the Joint Commissioner, and that any disputes should be resolved through an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bank account could be attached for recovery of GST dues when the order-in-original, which purportedly authorized such recovery, was allegedly not uploaded or communicated to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 74(I) and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the lack of proper communication and uploading of the order-in-original rendered the subsequent recovery action, including bank account attachment, illegal and unsustainable. They claimed ignorance of the order until the attachment notice was served. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the order-in-original was validly passed, digitally signed, and uploaded on the portal. They asserted that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the appellate authority, and not to pursue a writ petition.