Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Maa Durga Trading Corporation, a proprietorship represented by Ashish Kumar Choudhary, challenged an assessment order dated 14.09.2020 uploaded on the GST common portal on 15.09.2020, contending that no valid notice under Section 46 of the Goods and Services Tax Act was ever served on it, and that it learnt of the order only in October 2024. The counter affidavit admitted that returns for June and July 2020 were filed within 30 days of the demand notices, so the assessed tax stood withdrawn, but interest of Rs.12,948/- and Rs.6,474/- for the two months remained outstanding.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the assessment order survived once returns were filed within 30 days of the demand notice, extinguishing the tax component.
  2. Whether the residual interest liability could be resolved without adjudicating the disputed service of notice.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No notice under Section 46 of the GST Act was ever received, and the petitioner learnt of the assessment order only in October 2024, long after it was passed.
  • Without admitting service of notice, the petitioner was nonetheless willing to deposit the outstanding interest amounts of Rs.12,948/- and Rs.6,474/- for June and July 2020 respectively, to put the dispute to rest.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Commissioner to the Government Pleader submitted that returns for the relevant months were filed within 30 days of the demand notices, so the assessed tax demand already stood withdrawn.
  • The only remaining dispute was the interest component, and the writ application could be disposed of once the petitioner agreed to pay it.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench noted the admitted position that the tax demand had already been withdrawn upon timely filing of returns, leaving only the interest liability in dispute.
  • The Court held the writ application had become infructuous in light of the petitioner's undertaking to pay the interest, without deciding the contested question of service of the Section 46 notice.
  • The petitioner was directed to deposit the interest amount within six weeks, and the writ application was disposed of accordingly.

Important Clarification

  • Where a registered person files returns within 30 days of a best-judgment demand notice, the tax component of the demand stands automatically withdrawn, leaving only interest and late fee payable.
  • Courts may dispose of writ petitions as infructuous on a taxpayer's voluntary undertaking to clear residual interest, without ruling on contested service-of-notice questions.

Sections Involved

  • Goods and Services Tax Act – governs assessment, notice and recovery procedures for registered persons.
  • Section 46, GST Act – empowers issuance of notice to a registered person who fails to furnish returns, triggering best-judgment assessment on non-compliance.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of as infructuous, in substance in favour of the assessee: the tax demand stood withdrawn, and the petitioner only had to pay the admitted interest amount within six weeks.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5308 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey
Date of Order: 16.09.2025

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.