Case Title: M/S Agarwal Tube Company vs The Union of India ​ Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. ​ 14239 of 2024 ​ Date of Judgment: 21 April 2025 ​ Bench: Justice P. B. ​ Bajanthri

Petitioner: M/S Agarwal Tube Company, represented by its proprietor, Sri Surendra Kumar Goyal. ​ Respondents: Union of India, State of Bihar, and other tax authorities.

Key Issues Raised by the Petitioner:

1. Quashing of Demand Order: The petitioner challenged the demand order dated 30.11.2023, which imposed tax, interest, and penalties totaling ₹20,82,163 for the period July 2017 to March 2018, claiming it was time-barred under Section 73(9) & (10) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. ​
2. Challenge to Notification: The petitioner sought to quash Notification No. ​ 9/2023 CT dated 31.03.2023, which extended the time limit for assessment under Section 73(10), arguing that no force majeure conditions existed to justify the extension. ​
3. Violation of Article 14: The petitioner argued that while the timeline for imposing tax was extended, no similar extension was granted for availing input tax credit under Section 16(4), which was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. ​
4. Non-compliance with Natural Justice: The petitioner claimed that the show cause notice and demand order were issued without a pre-show cause notice (Form DRC-01A), violating principles of natural justice. ​
5. Improper Service of Notice: The petitioner contended that uploading notices and orders on the common portal did not meet the service requirements under Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act. ​

Respondents' Arguments:

1. Extension of Deadline: The respondents argued that the deadline for assessment for 2017-18 was extended to 31.12.2023 through Notification No. ​ 9/2023 CT, which was upheld in previous cases.
2. Opportunity Provided: The respondents claimed that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to respond to the notices and reminders issued on 29.09.2023 and 04.11.2023. ​
3. Statutory Remedy: The respondents emphasized that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. ​

Court's Observations and Judgment:

1. Limitation Period: The court held that the assessment for 2017-18 was initiated within the extended deadline of 31.12.2023, making the proceedings valid in terms of timing. ​
2. Violation of Section 73(8): The court found that the notice dated 29.09.2023 did not provide the mandatory 30-day period for reply and hearing, violating Section 73(8) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.
3. Remand for Correction: The court set aside the impugned actions dated 30.11.2023 and remanded the matter to the concerned authority to issue a corrigendum to the 29.09.2023 notice, ensuring compliance with Section 73(8). ​ The authority was directed to complete this exercise within three months. ​
4. Other Reliefs: Remaining contentions and reliefs sought by the petitioner were left open for future consideration. ​

Final Decision:

The writ petition was allowed in part, with directions to the tax authorities to rectify procedural lapses and reissue the notice in compliance with the law.