Patna High Court
M/S Umagaurav Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4914 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Umagaurav Private Limited, a private limited company, having its
registered principal place of business under GST in Bihar at Vivek Vihar
Colony, Kusumpur, Gola Road, Danapur Patna, P.O- Danapur and P.S-
Rupaspur, District Patna, Bihar, 801503, through its Director cum authorised
signatory namely Prabhat Gaurav, S/o Rajdeo Prasad, residing at House at end
of Indrapuri Path, Saristabad, Kacchi Talab, Gardanibagh, Phulwari, P.O-
G.P.O and P.S- Gardanibagh, District- Patna, Bihar- 800001.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial
Tax Department, Government of Bihar, Kar Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Marg,
Patna-800001, Bihar.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Danapur Circle-2, Danapur,
Patna, Bihar.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Danapur Circle-2, Danapur, Patna,
Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anubhav Khowala, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 17-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner in the present writ application is seeking the
following reliefs:-
"(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the
ex-parte summary of Order dated 18/02/2025 along with a
summary order in form GST DRC-07 dated 18/02/2025
bearing reference no. ZD100225021938O (Annexure 'P/3
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
2/23
series') uploaded by the respondent no. 2 on the Additional
Notices & Orders Tab of the GST Portal of the Petitioner,
whereby a total demand of tax of Rs. 8,46,476 /- along with
calculated interest of Rs. 5,71,372/- and penalty amounting to
Rs. 84,646/- has been created against the petitioner under
sub-section 9 of section 73 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST, Act 2017" for short) or the Bihar
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("BGST Act, 2017" for
short) for the tax period April 2020-March 2021, because the
above impugned order has imposed demand of tax, interest
and penalty based on assumptions, conjectures and surmises
without due application of mind by the Proper Officer, and
because the above order is passed without the authority of
GST Law and without adhering to the scheme of the GST
Act, and because the above order is passed without adhering
to the principles of natural justice as the above order along
with the related show cause notice and reminders to show
cause notices were not effectively communicated to the
petitioner and because no proper opportunity of personal
hearing was afforded during the adjudication and even before
passing the above impugned order which is violative of the
provisions of section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 and
because the above order has imposed a Penalty of Rs.
84,646/- which is excess of the penalty amounting to Rs. NIL
as demanded in the related Show Cause Notice dated
25/10/2024
and is thus in violation of the provisions of
section 75(7) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 and because the
genuine ITC claimed by the Petitioner cannot be denied for
the default of its supplier to file their GSTR 1 returns without
any allegation of obtaining fraudulent ITC against the
petitioner and because the order is vague, cryptic and does
not set out the reasons for determination of demand and no
specific allegation has made against the petitioner resulting in
creation of demand ;
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
3/23
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the
Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as “SCN” for
short) dated 25/10/2024 bearing reference no. 2510 along
with summary of Notice in form GST DRC-01 bearing
reference no. ZD1010240213690 dated 26/10/2024
(Annexure ‘P/2 series’) uploaded by the respondent no. 2 on
the Additional Notices & Orders Tab of the GST Portal of the
Petitioner, whereby a total demand of tax of Rs.8,46,476/-
along with calculated interest of Rs.5,33,280/- and penalty
amounting to NIL/- has been determined against the
petitioner under sub-section 1 of section 73 of the
CGST/BGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2020-March
2021, because it is issued without adhering to the principles
of natural justice as there was no effective communication of
the impugned notice as it was merely uploaded in the
“additional notices and orders” tab of the GST portal and
because there was no opportunity of personal hearing granted
to the petitioner in the Impugned SCN or the subsequent
reminder notices and nor any such opportunity was provided
before passing the adverse demand order which is violative of
the provisions of section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017
and because the demand has been determined in the
impugned SCN without due application of mind by the
proper officer, only on the basis of assumptions and surmises
and taking adverse view against the petitioner and alleging
excess claim of ITC by petitioners for difference in ITC as
per GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B without undertaking any
action/enquiry against the suppliers of the petitioner;
(iii) For further issuance of a writ or order or direction upon
the respondent authorities to drop the impugned proceedings
against the petitioner for tax period April 2020-March 2021
and in case any clarification is required by the respondents in
relation to the allegations imposed upon the petitioner
through the above impugned Show Cause Notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
4/23
25/10/2024 as confirmed by the above impugned Demand
Order dated 18/02/2025, the respondents may further be
directed to initiate a fresh proceedings by issuing a Show
cause Notice (subject to the limitation for issuance of such
notices as envisaged under the CGST/BGST Act, 2017) and
after providing reasonable time to file a reply and an effective
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to represent
their case, may complete the adjudication on merits in
accordance with the provisions of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017
and Principles of Natural Justice;
(iv) For further issuance of a writ or order or direction upon
the Respondents for quashing the Notice for recovery u/s
79(1)(c) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 in form GST DRC-13
dated 16/03/2026 bearing Memo No 417 issued by
Respondent No. 3 whereby a Lien has been marked against
the Bank Accounts of the petitioner maintained with Axis
Bank, Boring Road, Branch for recovery of Rs.16,11,951/-
towards outstanding amount of tax, interest and penalty for
FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 and granting stay of execution
and operation of the impugned order dated 18/02/2025 along
with form GST DRC-07 dated 18/02/2025 passed by the
respondent no. 2 during the pendency of this writ application.
(v) For further issuance of a writ or order or direction to the
Respondents and any other authority executing any of the
directions issued by the said respondents, to refund to the
Petitioner the total amount recovered by the Respondent
Department towards the demand of tax, interest and penalty
created by the Demand Order dated 18/02/2025 read with the
summary order in form GST DRC-07 dated 18/02/2025 for
FY 2020-21 after the impugned order dated 18/02/2025 is
quashed for the grounds pleaded in this writ petition by the
Petitioner.
(vi) For further issuance of any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
5/23
Brief facts of the Case
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a
private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act,
2013. The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of
providing construction services as a works contractor. The
petitioner is duly registered under the Goods and Services Act (in
short ‘GST Act’) with the respondent authorities in the State of
Bihar under GSTIN 1088CCU2229A1Z8. The petitioner has duly
filed GST returns and deposited the admitted tax for the Financial
Year 2020-2021. The petitioner maintains bank account numbers
922020058610511 and 20150206476 with Axis Bank, Boring
Road, Patna. On 16.12.2025, the petitioner came to know that
debit transactions had been put on hold by the GST Department
and transactions were being declined. The petitioner approached
the respondent no.2 where he was informed that his account has
been attached for recovery of outstanding GST demand for
Financial Year 2020-21. As the petitioner had no prior information
regarding any such demand, on request, the authorities provided a
copy of the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods
and Services Act/Bihar Goods and Services Tax, (in short
‘CGST/BGST’) Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-13 dated 26.11.2025
bearing Memo No. 222 and the petitioner was informed that all
these notices and orders are uploaded on the GST portal of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
6/23
petitioner which can be assessed by logging into the GST
common portal.
4. As per GST DRC-13 Notice, a sum of Rs. 22,05,624/-
on account of tax interest and penalty was outstanding for
proceeding under GST for the Financial Year 2019-20 and 2020-
21. It is stated that having no option and not agreeing with the
impugned demands, the petitioner gave three signed cheques of
amounts and dates as per the direction of the respondent
authorities and after signing the tax challan for immediate release
of the bank account, the respondent no.3 issued a letter in Form
DRC-14 dated 17.12.2025 to unblock the account of the petitioner
as after recovery of the outstanding demand against the petitioner.
5. It is stated that a notice was issued under the signature
of respondent no.3 for recovery from third party under Section
79(1)(C) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-13
dated 16.03.2026 in Memo No. 417 for holding of Rs. 16,11,951/-
towards outstanding amount of tax interest and penalty for the
Financial Year 2020-21.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
making payment of outstanding demand under protest for
immediate detachment of the bank account it was found on the
GST portal that the SCN, DRC-01, reminder notices and demand
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
7/23
order (Annexure ‘P/2’ series) were uploaded only under the
“Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the “Notices and
Orders” tab. It is stated that the “Additional Notices and Orders”
tab was easily accessible on the portal and notifications unlike the
notices that are uploaded in “Notices and Orders” tab of the portal.
7. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the show cause notice by which the petitioner was
directed to submit its reply on or before 25.11.2024, however, no
date for personal hearing was fixed as the specific column for
personal hearing was marked “NA”, therefore, no opportunity of
personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner in violation of
Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.
8. Learned counsel submits that an ex-parte demand
order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2016 dated
18.02.2025 along with summary order in Form GST DRC-07
dated 18.02.2025 for the Financial Year 2020-21 (Annexure ‘P/3’
series) issued under the signature of respondent no.3 was found
uploaded on the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab of GST
Portal. Learned counsel submits that no notices and orders
annexed at Annexure ‘P/3’ series were ever served upon him by
any of the modes such as speed post on the GST registered
address, on registered e-mail id and physical communication.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
8/23
9. Learned counsel submits that merely uploading of the
notice on the GST Portal is not sufficient/effective service of
notice and the order in relation to the proceeding initiated against
the petitioner comes under the violation principle of natural
justice. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
M/s. Shree Shyam Trading Co. vs. Union of India (CWJC No.
5661 of 2025) and in the case of M/s Lord Vishnu Construction
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. reported in 2025 (2)
PLJR 687 passed by this Court and contended that in these cases
the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to quash the proceedings
under GST initiated by merely uploading the notices under the
“Additional Notices and Orders” Tab. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance on various judgments of this Court; Shree Ram Sales
LLP vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 2768 of
2025), M/s Binod Traders vs. Union of India (CWJC No. 5495
of 2025), Durga Paper Plate Industries vs. Union of India
(CWJC No. 7911 of 2025), Raja babu Kapra Ghar vs. Union
of India (CWJC No. 6640 of 2025), M/s Shree Shyam Trading
Co. vs. the Union of India & Ors. (CWJC No. 5661 of 2025).
10. Learned counsel submits that the respondent
authorities have failed to ensure that there is actual service of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
9/23
impugned notice dated 25.10.2024 and the subsequent order dated
18.02.2025 upon the petitioner due to which the petitioner was
deprived of any opportunity to file a reply. It is submitted that the
petitioner came to know about the proceedings for the Financial
Year 2020-21 only upon attachment of its bank account and by
that time, the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 had already
attained finality due to which the petitioner also lost his right to
file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017
within the prescribed time limit due to non-communication of the
said order.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner got itself registered
with Danapur Circle-2 of Commercial Taxes Department. A return
for the Assessment Year 2020-21 was filed. The assessing
authority found that the petitioner had availed huge input tax
credit in excess of the eligibility. The tax liability discharged by
the petitioner was lower than that admitted by the GSTR-1. Thus,
a notice to show cause was issued on 25.10.2024 to the petitioner
through GST portal.
12. It is submitted that when the petitioner did not act on
or responded to the show cause notice, two reminders dated
13.11.2024 and 11.02.2025 were also served on the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
10/23
These notices did not yield any result. The adjudication
proceeding culminated into a demand vide order dated
18.02.2025.
13. The petitioner did not prefer any statutory appeal
against the assessment order. The appeal was required to be filed
within a period of three months in terms of Section 107 of the
CGST/BGST Act, but the present writ application has been filed
after more than a year, leaving aside the remedy of a statutory
appeal.
14. It is submitted that the bank account of the
petitioner was attached in November, 2025. This fact was
known to the petitioner, but even at this stage, instead of filing
the appeal, the petitioner chose to approach the Joint
Commissioner, State Taxes, Danapur Circle-2, Danapur.
Petitioner admitted the demand and furnished an undertaking
that the assessed demand would be cleared within three months.
He requested the respondent authorities to remove the hold on
its accounts so that the petitioner may conduct its business
smoothly. Petitioner furnished three post-dated cheques
covering the total amount of Rs. 21,97,654/-. One of the post-
dated cheques amounting to Rs. 8,46,476/- was allowed to be
encashed, but when the other cheques were presented before the
bank, those cheques stood dishonoured due to insufficient fund.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
11/23
Respondents have enclosed Annexure ‘A’ and Annexure ‘B’
respectively to the counter affidavit to support the
aforementioned submissions. Till this time, the petitioner did
not raise any issue.
15. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
statement of the petitioner in paragraph ‘7’ of the writ
application is only an afterthought story told by the petitioner
and these statements have been manufactured to give an
impression that the petitioner had no knowledge of issuance of
show cause notice and demand notice arising out of the
impugned adjudication order.
16. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the
petitioner may be seen from the fact that the bank account of
the petitioner was attached in November, 2025, whereafter on
15.12.2025, the petitioner furnished the undertaking and three
post-dated cheques to the department, he cited his poor
financial condition and by offering three post-dated cheques, he
took benefit from the department to allow him to run the bank
accounts for smooth conduct of business. The department
allowed the petitioner to operate the accounts by withdrawing
the hold and thereby the petitioner took advantage of the
undertaking and the post-dated cheques given by him to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
12/23
department. In fact, one of the cheques have been allowed to be
encashed, but subsequently, under legal advice, the petitioner
has chosen to file this writ application.
17. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the petitioner has made itself disentitled for
the reliefs prayed in the writ application. Reliance has also been
placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the case of M/s Yash Krishi Seva Kendra vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 13023 of 2022)
and on the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court
in the case of M/s A.R. Steels vs. Deputy Assistant
Commissioner STL (W.P. No. 1152 of 2026) reported in
(2026) 156 GSTR 315
18. In paragraph ’16 (II)’ the respondents have
described in detail the intricacies of the uploading of the notices
and orders under “Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the
GST portal. It is submitted that in the case of Medha Servo
Drives Private Limited vs. Union of India (WP(C) No. 41395
of 2025) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 16881, a similar
plea was taken on behalf of the assessee, but the Hon’ble Kerala
High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ application on the
ground that going by the scheme of the Act and the manner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
13/23
which the service of notice is contemplated under Section 169
and there being no dispute with regard to the fact that the order
was uploaded on the web portal, no justifiable reasons may be
found to entertain the writ petition.
19. It is submitted that in paragraph ’16(II)’, the
respondents have categorically stated that when a notice/order
is uploaded on GST portal, the system automatically sends a
message to this effect to the taxpayer through SMS as well as
on its registered email address. Thus, it is submitted that the
grievance of the petitioner is baseless as it cannot plead
ignorance of notices served on it.
20. It is also pointed out that while answering sub-
paragraph (I) and (II) of paragraph ’16’ of the counter affidavit,
the petitioner could not muster enough courage to make a
positive statement that no SMS or email was received by the
petitioner. Instead of saying so in simple words, the petitioner
simply denied the assertion of the respondent stating that no
proof of any such alert has been placed on record. It is
submitted that to say that no such alert has been placed on
record is one thing, but to say that no such alert/email was
received by the petitioner would have been a different thing.
The distinction is very clear. The petitioner claims that he had
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
14/23
deputed a professional to check his emails but neither the name
of that professional has been disclosed nor any
declaration/certificate of the professional, if any, has been
brought on record.
Consideration
21. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State at length. The petitioner has challenged
the show cause notice dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure ‘P/2’ series) and the
ex-parte summary of order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure ‘P/3’ series). A
perusal of Annexure ‘P/2’ would show that as per return filed by
taxpayer and data available on GST portal for the Financial Year 2020-
21, some discrepancies were found. Relevant part of Annexure ‘P/2’ are
as under:-
“1. As per returns for the said period, following discrepancies has
been found
Tax liability as per Tax paid as per GSTR Less tax paid
GSTR01 3B
1654984 1592458 62526
2. As per returns GSTR-3B for the period mentioned above, it is
clear that you have claimed excess ITC in comparison to ITC
accrued as per GSTR-2A.
ITC claimed ITC accrued as per Excess ITC claim
FY 2020-21 in GSTR 3B GSTR 2A in GSTR-3B
2629268 184419 783949
22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies, the
department decided to issue a ‘SCN’ under Section 73(1) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
15/23
BGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 142(1) “Ground:- Excess claim
of ITC and suppression of turnover.” The taxes and other dues
were calculated as under:-
” Tax and other dues
Act Tax Interest Total
CGST 423238 266640 689878
SGST 423238 266640 689878
Total 846476 533280 1379756
”
23. The SCN (Annexure ‘P/2’) further contained
stipulation that interest as per Section 50(1) of the BGST Act is
applicable on the above difference amount. The petitioner was
advised to pay the amount of taxes ascertained along with amount of
applicable interest or submit his explanation by 24.11.2024, failing
which DRC-07 will be issued under Section 73(9). Thereafter,
reminders dated 13.11.2024 and 11.02.2025 were issued.
24. The petitioner did not submit any response. Ultimately,
the summary of order under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017
(Annexure ‘P/3’ series) was issued. The order contained in DRC-07
is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“Office of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax Danapur Circle-2, Danapur
Demand Order under Section 73 (9) of Central / Bihar GST Act, 2017
GSTIN :- 10AACCU2229A1Z8
Legal Name :- UMAGAURAV PRIVATE LIMITED
Trade Name :- UMAGAURAV PRIVATE LIMITED
Tax Period :- APRIL 20 & MARCH 21.
F-Y :- 2020-2021
Act-BGST 2017
Summary of Order
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
16/23vkids }kjk vkyksP; vof/k gsrq GSTR&1 ,oa GSTR-3B nkf[ky dj nh x;h gSA djnkrk }kjk
nkf[ky dh x;h foojf.k;ksa dh tk¡p dh x;hA tk¡pksijkUr fuEufyf[kr vfu;ferrk ik;h x;h %&
vkids }kjk GSTR-3B esa nkok fd, x, ITC rFkk GSTR-2A esa Auto Populated ITC dh
fLFkfr fuEuor~ ik;h x;h %&
Particulars CGST/SGST
ITC Availed in GSTR-3B 2629268
ITC Auto populated in GSTR-2A 184419
Differences 783949Particulars CGST/SGST
Tax Liability as per GSTR 1 1654984
Tax Paid as per GSTR 3B 1592458
Differences 62526mä ls Li”V gksrk gS fd vkids }kjk CGST/SGST ds varxZr :Ã¥ 846476 dk dj Hkqxrku ugha
fd;k x;k gSA rFkk CGST/SGST ds varxZr :Ã¥ 243683-00 Excess ITC dk nkok fd;k x;k
gSA Short tax Payment rFkk Excess ITC Claim Output Tax Liability esa tksM+rs gq, bl
ij dsUæh; @ fcgkj eky ,oa lsok dj vf/kfu;e 2017 dh /kkjk 50 ¼1½ ds varxZr fn;s x;s çko/kkuksa
ds vkyksd esa 1-5% çfrekg dh nj ls CGST/SGST ds varxZr C;kt :å 533280 laxf.kr dh
tkrh gSA
bl çdkj mi;qZä rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa dsUæh; @ fcgkj eky ,oa lsok dj vf/kfu;e 2017 dh /kkjk
73¼1½ ds varxZr fn;s x;s çko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa dj ,oa ‘kkfLr rFkk /kkjk 50¼1½ ds varxZr laxf.kr
C;kt dk C;kSjk fuEuor~ gSACT Tax Interest Total
CGST 423238 266640 689878
SGST 423238 266640 689878
Total 846476 533280 1379756
mijksä jkf’k :0 1379756-00 ds fy, fofgr çi= DRC – 01 (Ref- No-
ZD1010240213690- 26/10/2024) esa lwpuk fuxZr fd;k x;kA tokc dh frfFk vFkok lk{;
çLrqr djus vkSj dj] C;kt ,oa v|ru ‘kkfLr dh jkf’k dk Hkqxrku djus ds fy, djnkrk dks
fnukad 25-11-2024 rd le; fn;k x;kA fuxZr lwpuk DRC -01 ,oa 01 Lekj ds vkyksd esa
djnkrk ds }kjk dkjZokbZ ‘kqU; gSA ftldk fooj.k fuEuor~ gSA
Reminder Ref No. Issue Date
1 ZD1011240077060 29/11/2024
2 ZD1002250125931 11/02/2025BGST Act, 169(1)(c) ds vkyksd esa vafre Lekj tks fd fucaf/kr mail ij Hkstus ds mijkUr Hkh
fuxZr lwpuk DRC-01 ds vkyksd esa djnkrk }kjk vkfnukad fdlh Hkh ek/;e ls viuk i{k çLrqr
ugha fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh vf/kjksfir jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA djnkrk dks fof/klEer~ viuk
i{k çLrqr djus ds fy, i;kZIr volj fn;k x;kA ijUrq buds }kjk SCN dk tokc ugha fn;k
x;kA
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
17/23vr% BGST ACT 2017 dh /kkjk 73 ds vkyksd esa vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dsUæh; @ fcgkj eky lsok dj
vf/kfu;e 2017 dh /kkjk 73 ¼9½ ds varxZr ,d if{k; dkjZokbZ djrs gq, dj] C;kt ,oa ‘kkfLr
vf/kjksfir djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA
lkFk gh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 50 ds rgr laxf.kr dj jkf’k ij @ 18% okf”kZd dh nj ls C;kt
vf/kjksfir djus fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA
iqu% vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 73 ¼9½ ds rgr dj jkf’k dk 10% ;k :0 10000-00 tks Hkh vf/kd gks]
‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA
djnkrk ds }kjk vkyksP; vof/k ds fy, /kkjk 73 ¼9½ ds rgr C;kt ,oa ‘kkfLr jkf’k] x.kuk fuEuor
gSSATax Period Act Tax(Rs.) Interest (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) Total (Rs.)
2020-21 SGST 423238.00 285686.00 42323.00 751247.00
CGST 423238.00 285686.00 42323.00 751247.00
Total- 846476.00 571372.00 84646.00 1502494.00mä jkf’k ds fy, çi= DRC 07 fuxZr djsa A
g0@&
jkT; dj lgk;d vk;qä
nkukiqj vapy&2- nkukiqj”
25. The above-mentioned summary of orders has been
challenged on the ground of it’s being an ex-parte order and non-
compliance with the requirement of Section 169 of the BGST Act,
2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the SCN was uploaded on
the GST portal under the heading “Additional Notices and Orders”
which is not a proper compliance.
26. On perusal of the writ application, this Court finds that
the impugned SCN and the summary of orders have been challenged
on the premise of non-compliance with Section 169 of the BGST
Act. Petitioner has chosen not to speak anything on merit on the
allegations that the petitioner had availed huge amount of excess
Input Tax Credit (ITC). The SCN in GST DRC-01 clearly states the
ITC approved as per GSTR – 2A was Rs. 1,84,419/- whereas the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
18/23
ITC claimed in GSTR-3B was Rs.26,29,268/-. It would further
appear that in the summary of order (Annexure ‘P/3’ series) there is
a clear stipulation that in the light of Section 169(1) (c) of the BGST
Act, the last reminder was sent on the registered mail, but even
thereafter, the assessee had not submitted his response to the SCN
contained in DRC-01.
27. The writ application is completely silent on the point
of actual accrual of ITC in the account of the petitioner as per
GSTR-2A. The writ application is also silent on the ground stated in
the SCN GST DRC-01, which talks of excess claim of ITC and
suppression of turnover.
28. Despite clear assertion in the summary of order that the
last notice was sent on the registered email, the petitioner has not
made specific and categorical statement that no email was received
by the petitioner on the registered email ID. There is no certificate of
any professional on this factual assertion. The only bald statement of
the petitioner is that he has been deprived of an opportunity of
effective personal hearing and that there is no proper compliance
with Section 169 of the BGST Act. Since the petitioner is seeking
quashing of the SCN DRC-01 and the summary of order in GST
DRC-07, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to state on fact the
actual accrual of ITC present in GSTR-2A. The allegations against
the petitioner are clearly stated in the SCN. In fact, a perusal of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
19/23
writ application would show that the petitioner claims that the
respondent no. 2 has failed to bring on record or even allege as how
it has been arrived that the ITC claimed by the petitioner is excess.
This kind of assertion would not inspire confidence. The submission
of the petitioner that no clarity has been given in order as to whether
the suppliers of the petitioner have not filed their GSTR-1 or have
not deposited the tax due on the supplies made to the petitioner or
whether they have merely failed to upload the invoices issued to the
petitioner amounts to putting the burden on the department without
making a positive statement with regard to the actual accrual of ITC
present in GSTR-2A.
29. Having taken note of this aspect of the matter, this
Court gave an option to learned counsel for the petitioner that he
may go in appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act after
withdrawing this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has, however, chosen to continue with this writ petition.
30. To this Court, it appears that only ornamental
statements have been made by the petitioner. In this regard, Section
73(1) of the BGST Act, 2017 and Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules,
2017 are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
Section 73(1) of the BGST Act
” 73. Determination of tax 2[, pertaining to the
1period upto Financial Year 2023-24] not paid or
short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax1 Enforced w.e.f. 1-7-2017 vide Noti No. 9/2017-Central Tax, dt. 28-6-2017.
2 Inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 (15 of 2024), dt. 16-8-2024, w.e.f. 1-11-2024 vide SO 4253(E), dt. 27-9-2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
20/23
credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason
other than fraud or any willful-misstatement or
suppression of facts.–
(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax
has not been paid or short paid or erroneously
refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly
availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason
of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of
facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person
chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or
which has been so short paid or to whom the refund
has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly
availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to
show cause as to why he should not pay the amount
specified in the notice along with interest payable
thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under
the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
Rule 142(1) of the CG & ST Rules, 2017
2
[142. Notice and order for demand of amounts
payable under the Act.-(1) The proper officer shall
serve, along with the –
2. Substituted vide Noti. No. 16/2019-Central Tax, dt. 29-3-2019, w.e.f.1-4-2019. Prior to substitution, rule 142 read as
under:-
“142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act.-
(1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the
(a) notice under sub-section (1) of section 73 or sub-section (1) of section 74 or sub-section (2) of section 76, a
summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01,
(b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74, a summary thereof electronically in
FORM GST DRC-02,
specifying therein the details of the amount payable.
(2) Where, before the service of notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and
interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and
penalty in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax,
interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act he shall inform the proper officer
of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an acknowledgement, accepting the
payment made by the said person in FORM GST DRC-04.
(3) Where the person chargeable with tax makes payment of tax and interest under sub-section (8) of section 73 or, as
the case may be, tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (8) of section 74 within thirty days of the service of a notice
under sub-rule (1), or where the person concerned makes payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of section
129 within fourteen days of detention or seizure of the goods and conveyance, he shall intimate the proper officer of
such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST DRC-05 concluding
the proceedings in respect of the said notice.
(4) The representation referred to in sub-section (9) of section 73 or sub-section (9) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of
section 76 or the reply to any notice issued under any section whose summary has been uploaded electronically in
FORM GST DRC-01 under sub-rule (1) shall be furnished in FORM GST DRC-06.
(5) A summary of the order issued under section 52 or section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 73 or section 74
or section 75 or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or
section 130 shall be uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of tax, interest and
penalty payable by the person chargeable with tax.
(6) The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the notice for recovery.
(7) Where a rectification of the order has been passed in accordance with the provisions of section 161 or where an
order uploaded on the system has been withdrawn, a summary of the rectification order or of the withdrawal order shall
be uploaded electronically by the proper officer in FORM GST DRC-08.”.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
21/23
(a) notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or
section 74 3[or section 74A] or section 76 or section
122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or
section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary
thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01″
31. The form GST DRC-01 contains the facts and
figures which the petitioner is unable to deny.
32. The petitioner is on record saying that his bank
account was attached in November, 2025. The statement of the
petitioner that the petitioner got information about the bank
attachment much later on 15.12.2025 when he visited the
jurisdictional office of the respondents and the copies of the
notices and the orders were obtained at an even later date upon
perusal of the portal subsequent to the signing of the alleged
undertaking letter dated 15.12.2025 is nothing but an afterthought.
This Court would reproduce the undertaking of the petitioner –
Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit hereunder:-
“lsok esa]
jkT; dj la;qä vk;qä
nkukiqj vapy&2- nkukiqjA
fo”k; %& dj C;kt ,ao ‘kkfLr Hkwxrku gsrq Bank Cheque lefiZr djus ds laca/k esaA
egk’k;]
fuosnuiwoZd dguk gS fd vkids dk;kZy; }kjk dj] C;kt ,oa ‘kkfLr cdk;k gksus ds
dkj.k esjs [kkrk la[;k dks Attach fd;k x;k gSA
eSa cdk;s jkf’k ds Hkqxrku gsrw çfrc) gw¡A esjh vkfFkZd fLFkfr [kjkc gksus ,oa O;olk;
lqxerk iwoZd py lds blds fy, esjs Bank A/C dks Deattached fd;k tkuk
vko’;d gSA esjs }kjk cdk;s jkf’k :0 2197654-00 dk Hkqxrku 03 ekg ds vanj dj
fn;k tk,xkA blds fy, eSa Hkonh; ds dk;kZy; esa 03 Post dated Cheque la[;k
396010] 396011] 396012 tek dj jgk gw¡A
3. Inserted vide Noti. No. 20/2024-Central Tax, dt. 8-10-2024, w.e.f. 1-11-2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
22/23vr% Hkonh; ls vuqjks/k gS fd esjs [kkrk la[;k 922020058610511 ,oa 20150206476
lapkyu ij yxs jksd ds fcUnq ij lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fopkj djrs gq, bls gVkus dh –ik
dh tk;A
g0@&
fo’oklHkktu”
33. The fact that after execution of the undertaking
(Annexure ‘A’), the petitioner never represented to the department
that the undertaking was wrongly given by him under duress,
rather he allowed one of the cheques to be cleared by the bank
and took advantage of the removal of the withholdment of the
account by the department. The conduct of the petitioner is such
that it would stop the petitioner from taking a plea in the writ
petition for the first time that the petitioner had given the
undertaking (Annexure ‘A’) under protest or under duress. This
Court finds nothing on the record to take a view that cheques were
furnished in protest or under compulsion of the attachment. The
statements in this regard made in the writ petition has been made
with an afterthought at much belated stage.
34. This writ application has been filed after three
months from the date of execution of the undertaking and
submission of the three post-dated cheques. There is nothing on
the record to take a view that for more than three months after
execution of the undertaking and submission of the post-dated
cheques, the petitioner could not have raised any protest or
preferred an appeal against the impugned SCN (Annexure ‘P/1’)
Patna High Court CWJC No.4914 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026
23/23
and the impugned summary of order (Annexure ‘P/2’). This is not
a bona fide writ application. The writ remedy is meant for those
who come clean before this Court. In the facts of this case, the
plenary and discretionary jurisdiction of issuance of extra-
ordinary writ is not fit to be exercised. The conduct of the
petitioner is such that it requires dismissal of the writ application
with cost, which we assess at Rs. 25,000/-.
35. The writ application is dismissed. Cost be paid to the
Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of
one month from today and receipt thereof be filed in the Registry.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 08.07.2026 Uploading Date 17.07.2026 Transmission Date
