GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Rajasthan High Court)
The petitioner challenged the attachment of its bank account ordered on 19.12.2025 following a GST demand raised through GST DRC-07 dated 29.02.2024. The DRC-07 order raised a demand of ₹3.39 crore after recording that the taxpayer had not discharged the GST liability through DRC-13 for the year 2018-19. Tax, interest, and penalty were imposed. As the petitioner did not challenge the DRC-07 order by filing an appeal, the GST authorities proceeded to attach its bank account against the total outstanding demand, including tax and interest, amounting to ₹14,06,54,640.
The petitioner submitted that it was unaware of the show cause notice and the DRC-07 order, asserting that they had not been properly communicated or made available on the GST portal. The petition contained this assertion without documentary proof. It was also stated that the communication was available on the main dashboard of the GST portal, although no documentary evidence regarding the same was placed before the Court. The petitioner further relied upon the judgment in Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., where the Court had permitted the filing of an appeal after expiry of limitation on the ground that a person should not be left remediless where valid reasons existed for the delay.
The High Court held that the said judgment had no application to the present case. It observed that the petitioner had neither filed an appeal nor made any attempt to do so. Instead, it had only moved a rectification application seeking correction of the order. The Court found the petitioner’s plea of lack of knowledge regarding the show cause notice and the DRC-07 order unacceptable. It observed that there appeared to have been deliberate ignorance of the proceedings, noting that a company holding a GST registration would necessarily be filing regular monthly and annual returns under the Act of 2017. In these circumstances, the Court was unable to accept the contention that the petitioner became aware of the proceedings only after attachment of its bank account. It held that equity did not lie in favour of the petitioner and that the facts did not warrant any indulgence.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The pending application, if any, was also dismissed.
Cases Discussed
- Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 dated 06.11.2025
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner before us was issued GST DRC-07 order on 29.02.2024 and a demand was raised for Rs.3.39 crores. In the order it was specifically found that the taxpayer did not discharge due GST liability through DRC-13 for the year 2018-19 and accordingly, the demand as well as interest and penalty was imposed. The order was not challenged by the petitioner in appeal, therefore, vide order dated 19.12.2025, against the total demand including the tax and interest of Rs.14,06,54,640/-, the account of the petitioner was attached.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not come to know about the orders passed by the GST Authorities and has vaguely averred in his petition without any documentary proof that the show cause notice as well as DRC-07 orders were not properly communicated and placed on the GST Portal. It is stated that the same was communicated on the main dashboard of the Portal, although no documentary proof in this regard has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 (Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) dated 06.11.2025 wherein, this Court allowed the petitioner to file appeal holding that a person cannot be left remediless, if the time period of filing of appeal has expired and there are valid reasons for the delay in filing of appeal.
4. In the present case however, we find that the said judgment would have no application to the present case. In the facts of the present case, neither an appeal has been filed nor an attempt has been made to file an appeal. In fact, the petitioner has moved a rectification application only for seeking rectification of the order. Thus, we do not find that contentions of the petitioner having no knowledge of the order or the show cause notice are correct. It appears that there has been a deliberate ignorance shown towards the show cause notice and the order because it is not possible for a company not to have known about the order passed under Section 74 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’), more so, as it continues to hold the GST number and would, therefore, be filing regular monthly returns. Annual returns are also required to be filed as per the Act of 2017. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that it had no knowledge of the orders being passed for show cause notice and it is only thereafter the bank account has been attached that the petitioner has approached this Court. Equity, therefore, does not lie in its favor. On facts, we find that that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence.
5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.
