M/S. Shyam Electric vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of natural justice and invalid service of notice was not sustainable. The Court found that the intimation in Form ASMT-10, notice in Form DRC-01, reminder, and the impugned order were served on the petitioner not only on the common portal but also through SMS and registered email, which were provided by the petitioner. This was deemed sufficient and effective compliance with Section 169 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, fulfilling the requirements as per the judgments cited by the petitioner themselves. The Court also noted that despite proper service, the petitioner failed to submit a reply, disentitling them from claiming a personal hearing under Section 75(4). The Court further emphasized the petitioner's indolent approach, including not responding to notices/reminders and failing to file a statutory appeal, and filing the writ application after an inordinate delay of 19 months, which rendered the petition non-entertainable. The Court relied on its own judgments regarding the entertainability of writ applications filed after inordinate delays and the interpretation of Section 75(4).

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shyam Electric, a proprietary concern, filed a writ application challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated December 26, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Patna West Circle. The order, along with a demand notice in Form DRC-07, was for the tax period 2017-18, raising a total demand of Rs. 52,19,732/- including interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided as required by Section 75(4) and that the notices were not served by a valid mode as per Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed to have learned about the order only in the last week of June 2025 and that notices were merely uploaded on the GST portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order dated December 26, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principle of natural justice due to non-granting of an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the service of show cause notices and the ex-parte assessment order were effected by a valid mode as contemplated under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017, or if merely uploading on the GST portal constitutes valid service? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided under Section 75(4). They further contended that notices were not served by valid modes like post or email, and mere uploading on the GST portal is insufficient and ineffective service under Section 169. They relied on judgments from the Allahabad High Court (M/S Bambino Agro Industries LTD.) and the Patna High Court (CWJC No. 5661 of 2025 M/s. Shree Shyam Trading Co.) and the Madras High Court (Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited). Respondent's Arguments: The respondent department argued that the petitioner was served with intimation in Form ASMT-10, Show Cause Notice in DRC-01, and reminders, all uploaded on the common GST portal. They further submitted that notices were also served via email and SMS to registered IDs and mobile numbers. They contended that the Supreme Court had stayed the judgment relied upon by the petitioner from the Allahabad High Court and that the judgments cited by the petitioner were not applicable to the present facts. They also highlighted the petitioner's inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.