Case Background
The case arose from a tax dispute under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime for the financial year 2017–2018.
The petitioner is M/s Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company engaged in construction work. It filed its annual GST return in Form GSTR-9 on 07.02.2020. The company states that it also filed the Reconciliation Statement in Form GSTR-9C for the same year.
In its GSTR-9C, the company declared turnover from April 2017 to June 2017 as Rs. 7,13,19,888/-. It claimed that this turnover fell before the enforcement of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was taxable under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, not under GST.
On 31.10.2023, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle-2, Patna passed an order under Section 73(9) of the GST Act, 2017 for the financial year July 2017 to March 2018. The officer raised a total demand of Rs. 3,25,98,914/- against the petitioner, consisting of:
- Tax: Rs. 1,57,06,316/-
- Interest: Rs. 1,53,13,687/-
- Penalty: Rs. 15,78,940/-
This demand was reflected in Form DRC-07 issued on the same date. The company’s main grievance was that this order was passed without giving it a real opportunity to reply to the show cause notice.
According to the petitioner, it came to know of the order only in the first week of March 2024. It then tried to challenge the order by filing a revision under Section 108 of the GST Act, 2017 before the Revisional Authority. Due to technical issues on the GST portal, the revision application was not getting uploaded, so the company sent it by e-mail on 06.03.2024.
The company then approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5291 of 2024. It initially asked the Court to direct the Revisional Authority to register and decide the revision, to protect it from coercive recovery, and to quash the order and demand.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the company moved an amendment application. Through this, it added a crucial allegation: that no notices were ever shown on its GST portal under the usual “notices and orders” tab, but instead were placed only under “additional notices and orders”. It claimed that because of this, it never came to know of the show cause notice and related communications, and therefore could not reply.
To support this, the petitioner brought on record screenshots of its GST portal page as Annexure P/8.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya, focused on one central question: whether the assessment order and demand dated 31.10.2023 should be set aside because the petitioner was not properly served with the show cause notice and related communications on the GST portal.
The petitioner argued that:
First, it had not hidden any turnover. It had openly declared April–June 2017 turnover in GSTR-9C and shown it as pre-GST, taxable under the Bihar VAT Act. Thus, there was no intention to evade tax.
Second, the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023 from the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle-2, Patna was never visible to the company in the normal “notices and orders” section of the GST portal. Instead, all such notices and reminders were uploaded only under the “additional notices and orders” tab.
The petitioner said that ordinary taxpayers are expected to look for notices under “notices and orders”. Since nothing appeared there, it had no knowledge of the proceedings. As a result, it could not file any reply, and the order under Section 73(9) was passed ex parte.
Third, the petitioner relied strongly on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Anhad Impex Through its Partner & Anr. vs Assistant Commissioner Ward 16. In that case, notices had also been placed only under “additional notices and orders”. The Delhi High Court held that such placement led to the assessee missing the notice, quashed the ex parte order, and gave the assessee another chance.
The petitioner also cited a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court which referred to Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. & others, Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024. There, too, notices were not uploaded under the heading “due notices and orders”. The Allahabad High Court extended the benefit of doubt to the taxpayer and remanded the matter back to the authority. This reasoning was later followed in Ms. Sudarshan Beopar Company Limited vs Union of India and others, reported in 2025 AHC 3854-BD.
The State, through its Standing Counsel No. 11, contested these submissions. It argued that Section 169 of the GST Acts (BGST/CGST) allows service of notices by making them available on the common portal. According to the State, this statutory mandate had been followed.
It was also argued that the entries on the portal, including the screenshots (Annexure R-2/1 relied upon by the petitioner), in fact showed that show cause notices and reminders were uploaded under the main notices section. On this basis, the State said that the petitioner cannot claim that notices were not served or that it was unaware of them.
However, when questioned by the Court, the State’s counsel fairly accepted that in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits, the respondents had not clearly or positively stated that the notices were uploaded under the “notices and orders” tab. They also did not specifically deny the screenshot produced by the petitioner.
The Court then examined Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. This provision lays down various modes of serving decisions, orders, summons, notices or other communications, including:
- Direct tendering or delivery to the taxable person or authorised persons
- Registered post or speed post or courier
- Sending communication to the registered e-mail address
- Making it available on the common portal
- Publication in newspaper
- Affixing at the last known place of business or on the office notice board
Sub-section (2) creates a deemed service where the document is tendered, published, or affixed in the manner prescribed. Sub-section (3) creates a deemed receipt when sent by registered or speed post, unless the contrary is proved.
While discussing the mode of service via the GST common portal, the Bench considered a practical question: is a taxpayer expected to check the portal every single day? The Court wondered why, when notices are placed on the common portal, an e-mail alert should not also be sent simultaneously to the registered e-mail address, to make service more meaningful and effective.
The petitioner’s senior counsel supported this view and suggested that simultaneous e-mail would ensure that taxpayers genuinely come to know of notices. The State, however, maintained that once the statute treats availability on the common portal as valid service, the department is not legally obliged to adopt an additional mode every time.
The Bench did not finally decide this broader policy question. It expressly kept the issue open to be considered in an appropriate future case and suggested that the department may examine this aspect itself.
For the present case, the Court turned to the actual layout and instructions on the GST portal. It noted that, as per the screenshot produced, the portal itself tells taxpayers that:
- Certain notices and orders (for example, registration-related communications, GSTR-3A, GST DRC-01B, GST DRC-01C, and some assessment summaries) are available under “Notices and Orders”.
- Other notices and orders, including those for advance ruling, appeal, assessment/adjudication, audit, enforcement, prosecution, compounding, recovery, LUT etc., are available under “Additional Notices and Orders”.
In this case, the petitioner asserted that all show cause notices and reminders were placed only under “additional notices and orders”. The respondents did not specifically deny the screenshot. Nor did they assert clearly, on affidavit, that these communications were in fact uploaded under the primary “notices and orders” tab.
In the face of this material and in the light of the Delhi and Allahabad High Court decisions, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for interference. The Court found that the situation raised a genuine doubt about proper service of the show cause notice and reminders and that the petitioner deserved an opportunity to present its case.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the assessment order and the demand in Form DRC-07 dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure-4 and Annexure-4/1).
It then gave directions for fresh proceedings. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle-2 (Respondent No. 4) within four weeks from the date of the judgment and to submit its response to the show cause notice, along with all supporting materials.
The Deputy Commissioner was directed to fix a date of hearing, give the petitioner or its authorised representative a proper hearing, and then pass a fresh assessment order within two months from the date of hearing.
The Court made it clear that it had not gone into the merits of the tax dispute itself and had not decided any other legal issues. The writ petition was allowed only to the limited extent of setting aside the impugned order and demand and directing a fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for both taxpayers and the tax department in Bihar and beyond.
First, it shows that the Patna High Court is willing to closely scrutinise how GST notices are actually served through the online portal. If notices are not clearly visible to the taxpayer under the main “notices and orders” section, and the department cannot show cleanly that proper service took place, ex parte orders may be set aside.
Second, the decision aligns with similar views taken by the Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court. This creates a growing body of High Court decisions that stress real, effective communication of notices, not just technical uploading somewhere on the portal.
Third, for businesses and individuals, the case underlines the importance of regularly checking all sections of the GST portal, including “additional notices and orders”. At the same time, it offers hope that if a taxpayer genuinely misses a notice due to how it is displayed on the portal, the courts may grant another chance.
Fourth, for the GST authorities, the judgment is a reminder that service rules exist to ensure that the assessee actually knows about proceedings. The Court has suggested that the department consider better practices, such as e-mail alerts, even though it has not mandated them yet.
Overall, the case reinforces that natural justice—giving a real chance to be heard—remains central in GST adjudication before any large tax, interest, or penalty is imposed.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the GST assessment order and demand dated 31.10.2023 could stand when the show cause notice and reminders were only uploaded under “additional notices and orders” on the GST portal and not clearly shown under “notices and orders”, leading to the petitioner not filing a reply.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that, in the facts of this case, proper service of notice was doubtful. Following similar views of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts and in the absence of a clear denial by the State regarding the screenshots, the Court set aside the order and demand, and directed a fresh assessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Anhad Impex Through its Partner & Anr. vs Assistant Commissioner Ward 16 (Delhi High Court, judgment dated 16.02.2024)
- Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs State of U.P. & 2 others, Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, decided on 22.07.2024)
- Ms. Sudarshan Beopar Company Limited vs Union of India and 3 others, reported in 2025 AHC 3854-BD (Allahabad High Court)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5291 of 2024
Case Title: M/s Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 687
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mrs. Archana Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
- For the Union of India (CGST/CX): Mr. Anshuman Singh, Senior Standing Counsel (CGST & CX); Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Standing Counsel-11
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a GST assessment order and demand under Section 73(9) of the GST Act, 2017, with related prayer for consideration of revision under Section 108.
Date of Judgment: 03.03.2025
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTI5MSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-HLs8V6y5Uio=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
