M/S Shree Jewellers vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the unexplained delay of approximately 38 months in filing it, which frustrates the legislative intent of time-bound compliances. The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. and ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., emphasizing that while alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, a writ petition filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, without sufficient cause, should not be entertained. The Court noted that the petitioner, by failing to submit replies to the intimation and show cause notice/reminders, abdicated its right under Section 75(4). Regarding the digital signature issue on DRC-07, the Court relied on a coordinate bench's decision in CWJC No. 1200/2023 and CWJC No. 13460/2024, stating that under Section 160 of the BGST/CGST Act, an assessment order cannot be invalidated for minor defects if the proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with the Act's intent. Therefore, the writ application was dismissed as not entertainable.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Jewellers, challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2021 and a demand order in Form DRC-07 dated 17.02.2022 for the period 2020-21. The petitioner argued that these were not digitally signed, issued without ASMT-10, and violated Section 61 and Section 75(4) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also contended that notices and reminders were uploaded only on the GST portal, violating principles of natural justice and Section 169 of the Act. The revenue, however, argued that the petitioner availed excess input tax credit, and after intimation in ASMT-10 and Show Cause Notice in DRC-01, failed to respond despite reminders. The revenue asserted that all communications were sent to the registered email and mobile number, and also made available on the GST portal as per Section 169(1)(d). The revenue further highlighted the petitioner's delay of over 3 years in filing the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2021 and demand order dated 17.02.2022 are liable to be quashed on the ground of not being digitally signed and issued without ASMT-10, in violation of Rule 99, Section 61, and Section 75(4) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the notices and reminders uploaded only on the GST portal, without proper personal hearing, violate the principles of natural justice and Section 169 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017? 3. Whether the demand order in Form DRC-07 dated 17.02.2022 is vitiated for want of digital signature, in violation of Rule 26(3) of the BGST/CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned notices and order are not digitally signed, issued without ASMT-10, and violate Section 61 and Section 75(4). Notices were uploaded only on the GST portal, violating natural justice and Section 169. The DRC-07 lacks a digital signature, violating Rule 26(3). Revenue's arguments: The petitioner availed excess input tax credit. All communications, including ASMT-10, DRC-01, reminders, and DRC-07, were sent to the registered email and mobile number and made available on the GST portal as per Section 169(1)(d). The petitioner failed to respond to the notices and reminders. The writ petition is filed after an unexplained delay of over 3 years, and an alternative remedy of appeal is available.