Facts of the Case

Ritesh Kumar challenged an order dated 11.08.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner of BGST, Danapur Circle, Patna. The petitioner claimed the order was passed without prior opportunity or hearing, and that he had wrongly entered input tax credit (ITC) in his returns due to a mistake that could be cured by revising the returns. The petitioner sought a stay of demand, withdrawal of bank account attachment, and either an opportunity to revise returns or a direction to treat the amount entered in a different column as the actual ITC. The petitioner admitted the order referred to notices dated 08.03.2022 and 15.03.2022 but claimed non-receipt, attributing this to the mobile number on the GST portal belonging to his son, who could have deleted the messages.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 without availing the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act.
  2. Whether rectification of an incorrectly entered input tax credit could be permitted beyond the timeline prescribed under Section 39(9) of the BGST Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Section 73 order was passed in violation of natural justice, without prior opportunity or hearing being afforded.
  • There was an apparent mistake in wrongly entering ITC in a different column, which could be cured by permitting revision of the returns, or alternatively by treating the amount in the different column as the correct ITC figure.
  • The mobile number registered on the GST portal belonged to the petitioner's son, and any notification messages received on it may have been deleted without the petitioner's knowledge.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Section 39(9) of the BGST Act prescribes a specific timeline within which any omission or incorrect particular in a return can be rectified, and the proviso bars rectification after the due date of furnishing the relevant annual return; the petitioner's claim for rectification was time-barred and could not be entertained by the writ court.

Court Order / Findings

  • The petitioner's own averments showed he had been lax in following up on the notices, including the message received on the mobile number he himself had registered with the tax authorities; he could not disclaim receipt on the ground that his son may have deleted it.
  • The extraordinary remedy under Article 226 does not inure to the benefit of assessees who are not diligent in raising their claims before the appellate authorities, and a statutory bar on rectification after the prescribed timeline under Section 39(9) cannot be circumvented through writ jurisdiction.
  • The petitioner had not filed a statutory appeal against the order under Section 107 of the BGST Act, and the grounds urged did not disclose any violation of natural justice from the record of the writ petition itself.
  • The writ petition was dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • The window for rectifying an incorrect input tax credit entry under Section 39(9) of the GST Act is strictly time-bound, and a writ court will not entertain a plea for rectification once that window has lapsed; an assessee who fails to diligently respond to notices sent to his own registered contact details cannot later claim non-receipt to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction bypassing the statutory appellate remedy.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, BGST Act, 2017 - determination of tax not paid or short paid, other than by fraud.
  • Section 39(9), BGST Act, 2017 - time limit for rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars in returns.
  • Section 107, BGST Act, 2017 - appeal to the Appellate Authority.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was dismissed, in favour of the Department.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7231 of 2023
Coram: Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Order: 15.05.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.