01Facts
The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged an ex-parte summary of order dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017
pp. 1-2The Revenue department alleged that the petitioner claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 26,29,268/- against an accrued ITC of only Rs. 1,84,419/- as per GSTR-2A
¶ 21The petitioner claimed the show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent orders were only uploaded in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal, leading to a lack of effective communication and violation of natural justice
¶ 6-9After bank accounts were attached in November 2025, the petitioner provided a written undertaking to pay the dues in installments and submitted three post-dated cheques
¶ 4, 32Subsequently, after one cheque was encashed, the petitioner filed this writ petition alleging non-service of notice
¶ 14, 3302Issues
i.1. Whether the uploading of notices under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the BGST Act
¶ 10ii.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to discretionary writ jurisdiction after having submitted an undertaking and post-dated cheques to the department for the recovery of dues
¶ 33-3403Law Applied
Section 73 of the BGST Act regarding the determination of tax short-paid or ITC wrongly availed
¶ 30Rule 142 of the CGST/BGST Rules, which mandates the electronic service of a summary of notice in Form GST DRC-01 and the order in GST DRC-07
¶ 30Section 169 of the BGST Act, which defines valid modes of service, including communication via the registered email or the common portal
¶ 18, 26Principle of equity and "clean hands" in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
¶ 34Provisions in the judgment · 24 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 18 provisions
Section 52Section 62Section 63Section 64Section 73Section 74Section 75Section 76Section 79Section 107Section 122Section 123Section 124Section 125Section 127Section 129Section 130Section 161BIHAR GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Section 50Section 73Section 75Section 79Section 107Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the summary order explicitly mentioned that the last reminder was sent to the petitioner’s registered email address, a fact the petitioner failed to categorically deny with evidence
¶ 26, 28The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge was purely procedural and "ornamental," as the petition remained silent on the merits of the alleged ITC discrepancy
¶ 27-28, 31The Court analyzed the petitioner's conduct: the petitioner had provided a voluntary undertaking (Annexure 'A') and post-dated cheques to unblock bank accounts, thereby taking the benefit of the department's leniency
¶ 32-33The Court rejected the argument that the undertaking was signed under duress, noting that the petitioner raised no protest for three months and only filed the writ as an "afterthought" after a cheque was dishonored
¶ 33-3405Holding
The Court dismissed the writ application, holding that the petitioner’s conduct—specifically the voluntary undertaking and part-payment—disentitled them from seeking extraordinary writ relief
¶ 34-35The Court found the petition lacked bona fides and was an attempt to backtrack on a settled commitment. Consequently, the Court upheld the recovery proceedings and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for abusing the judicial process
¶ 34-35Original Court PDF
M/s Umagaurav Private LimitedvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
