Patna High Court
M/s Brajendra Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner may withdraw the writ application and pursue the appropriate appeal within 30 days, and thus the writ petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash a GST DRC‑13 notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the GST Act and a mandamus to restrain the freezing of its bank accounts, alleging that the notice was issued without considering its rectification applications and without a hearing. The respondents produced orders showing that the rectification applications had been rejected, and argued that the garnishee order was not issued. The petitioner contended that the orders were appealable and that he should be allowed to withdraw the writ and pursue the appeal. The Court noted that the orders passed during the pendency of the writ were not challenged and that the petitioner could withdraw the writ to file the appropriate appeal within 30 days. The State’s counsel raised no objection to this approach. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ application and directed him to file the appeal within the stipulated period, leaving all other contentions open. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the GST DRC‑13 notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the GST Act can be quashed for not considering the petitioner’s rectification applications and for denying a hearing.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus restraining the freezing of its bank accounts pending appeal.
- Whether the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and pursue the appropriate appeal within a specified period.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 79(1)(c)
Subjects
- GST
- Section 79(1)(c)
- DRC‑13 notice
- rectification application
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- bank account freeze
- appeal
- due process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4459 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Brajendra Kumar Singh a Proprietorship Firm having its place of
business at Sankat Mochan House, Congress Maidan Road, Congress Maidan,
Kadam Kuan, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, District- Patna, Bihar, 800003, through its
Proprietor Brajendra Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Ram Bahadur
Singh, resident of the aforesaid address, bearing GSTIN 10ASDPS3220P1ZT.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamkuan Circle, Patna.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamkuan Circle, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravish Chandra, AC to SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to SC-11 for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application is
seeking the following reliefs:-
i. For issuance of writ in the nature of
Certiorari, for quashing the Notice in Form GST
DRC-13 dated 14.03.2026 issued under Section
79(1)(c) of the GST Act by the Deputy
Commissioner of State Tax, Kadam Kuan Circle,
Patna, whereby and whereunder, the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
2/5
authority, without following due process of law,
without considering and deciding the petitioner's
rectification applications dated 11.03.2026 and
13.03.2026, and without granting a proper
opportunity of hearing, has directed various banks
to freeze/hold the petitioner's accounts and recover
the alleged dues amounting to Rs. 2,59,11,304/- for
payment to the Government.
ii. To issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities
not to freeze or attach the petitioner's bank
accounts and not to initiate or proceed with the
recovery of the alleged demand of Rs.
2,59,11,304/-, till the petitioner's rectification
applications are duly considered and disposed of,
and the petitioner is afforded reasonable
opportunity to avail the statutory remedy of appeal,
failing which the Government work entrusted to the
petitioner is likely to come to a standstill, resulting
in irreparable loss and injury.
iii. To grant of any order relief or reliefs
to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
3/5
and circumstances of this case.
3. It is evident from the reliefs prayed in the writ
application that the petitioner was aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 14.03.2026. His
contention in the writ petition was that a notice has been issued
without considering and deciding the petitioner’s rectification
applications dated 11.03.2026 and 13.03.2026 and without
granting him a proper opportunity of hearing.
4. By filing a counter affidavit, the Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 have brought on record a copy of the order dated
04.05.2026 as Annexure ‘R2/1 (series)’ whereby and
whereunder the rectification application (Annexure ‘P-3’ to the
writ application) for rectification of the order dated 25.11.2025
has been rejected by the competent authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even
the another rectification application dated 13.03.2026 with
respect to the order dated 19.12.2025 has been rejected.
6. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken
a plea that no garnishee order/DRC-13 with respect to the
demand created vide order dated 19.12.2025 has been issued by
the respondent Adjudicating Authority.
7. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that
Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
4/5
during pendency of the writ application, the respondent
authorities have passed the orders (Annexure ‘R2/1 (series)’ and
Annexure ‘R2/2’). Those orders are not under challenge in the
present writ application.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
these orders are appealable orders, therefore, he may be
permitted to withdraw this writ application with liberty to
challenge the orders (Annexure ‘R2/1 (series)’ and Annexure
‘R2/2’) before the appropriate authority within a period of 30
days from today.
9. Learned AC to SC-11 for the State has no objection
to the same.
10. In the circumstances, we allow the petitioner to
withdraw this writ application in order to pursue his remedy in
appeal before the Appellate Forum/Appellate Authority by
presenting the constituted appeals within a period of 30 days
from today.
11. If such appeals are preferred and question of
limitation arises for consideration, the same will be considered
keeping in view that the writ application was pending before
this Court and during pendency of writ petition only, the orders
have been passed by the respondent authorities.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
5/5
12. All contentions are left open to the parties.
13. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Abhishek/-
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.