The court ruled that inadequate notice particulars denied the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond, necessitating the annulment of the order and further proceedings.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 21-01-2025

1. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

a) For issuance of a writ or order or a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 27.04.2024 and the summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07 dated 28.04.2024 passed and issued by the respondent number 2 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the central act 2017 for short) read with Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act

2017 for short);

b) For further issuance of a writ or order or a direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in terms of section 79 of the central act 2017 and Bihar act 2017 for recovery of the amount of tax, interest and penalty determined in terms of the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 and the summary of order issued in form GST DRC – 07 dated 28.04.2024;

c) For further holding and a declaration that the item dealt by the petitioner in business being pulses and foodgrains with HSN code – 071390 is fully exempted from tax liability under the central act 2017 and Bihar act 2017 and therefore the imposition of liability of tax, interest and penalty in terms of the impugned order passed by the respondent number 2 is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law;

d) For further holding and a declaration that the petitioner being engaged in the business of trading items fully exempted under the central act 2017 and Bihar act 2017 could never be subjected to the liability of tax, interest and penalty and as such the impugned order suffers serious jurisdictional error wherein the petitioner has been saddled with such liabilities only on account of non-appearance in the proceeding;

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient material has not been apprised to the petitioner to the extent what is required to be furnished in the communications. This is evident from scrutiny under Section 61 of Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the year 2018-2019 followed by notice dated 21.07.2023. The petitioner is stated to have filed return and from such return material, the concerned authority should have drawn an inference insofar as which are the items exempted/ nil rated/ 0 rated, thereafter he should have sought for proof of such of those material information. In the absence of furnishing such details in the notice dated 21.07.2023, petitioner is not in a position to file effective reply and for drawing up of further proceedings by the official respondents. It is also submitted that for the year 2017-2018 exemption has been accepted. It is also submitted that there is no change in certain goods traded by the petitioner like pulses and rice etc. during the two spells of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. If the official respondents are distinguishing nature of trade by the petitioner from 2017-2018 and to that of 2018-2019 in that event, the concerned official respondents should have distinguished in what manner trading of goods by the petitioner are different from the respective year and it is not forthcoming.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforementioned contention of the petitioner and submitted that all necessary formalities have been followed while adhering to Section 146 and Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 . Notice was uploaded on 21.12.2023 in common portal followed by three reminders dated 09.04.2024, 18.04.2024 and 23.04.2024, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.04.2024. It is also submitted that pe