Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Triguna Nand Singh, challenged a show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 in Form GST DRC-01 and an ex-parte order dated 29.12.2023 under Section 73 of the CGST Act for tax period 2017-18, on the ground that both the notice and order actually referred to an entirely different person – one Tarunjay Kumar Singh, holding a different GST number – with a different description of tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner also challenged the consequential withholding of payment for his executed government contracts by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, pursuant to instructions from the tax authority. On the Court's direction to the State to secure instructions on whether there was a clerical mistake, the State confirmed on the next date that the concerned officer had indeed erred in issuing the notice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a show cause notice and consequential order issued mistakenly against the wrong taxpayer, naming a different GST-registered person, can be sustained against the petitioner.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Form GST DRC-01 notice dated 30.09.2023 and the ex-parte order dated 29.12.2023 actually pertained to a different person, Tarunjay Kumar Singh, holding a different GSTIN, with a different description of tax, interest and penalty – a serious infirmity contrary to the Rules.
  • The order also lacked a digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules.
  • The consequential withholding of contract payments by the Executive Engineer should also be set aside with a direction to release amounts due under executed contracts.

Respondent's Arguments

  • On instructions, the State's counsel admitted before the Court that the concerned officer had committed an error while issuing the notice to the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • Having regard to the State's admission of a clerical/identification error, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for interference.
  • The impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and the order dated 29.12.2023 were set aside.
  • Liberty was reserved to the official respondents to act in accordance with law against either the petitioner or Tarunjay Kumar Singh, as may be warranted, once the identification error is corrected.

Important Clarification

  • A show cause notice and consequential demand order that mis-identify the taxpayer – attributing a different person's GSTIN, tax, interest and penalty particulars to the petitioner – are liable to be set aside on this ground alone, without the Court needing to examine the substantive merits of the underlying demand.

Sections Involved

  • Form GST DRC-01 – summary of show cause notice under Rule 100(2)/142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 – requirement of authentication/digital signature on notices and orders.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – modes of service of notice.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Petitioner; the notice and order were quashed on account of the admitted identification error, with liberty reserved to the department to proceed correctly in accordance with law.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Patna; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12314 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Pd. Singh; Order dated 13.08.2025.

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.