TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
One of the taxpayers in the state of Rajasthan, M/s. GVK Jaipur expressway private limited has spoiled their own GST case for the years 2018-19 as well as 2017-18 due to non-timely action against the two OIO passed under section 74. The case could not be spoiled any further as the maximum damage which was possible is already done. This case should be an eye opener for all registered GST taxpayers to visit the portal at least once in every 15 days as well as at the time of filing the GST returns for any SCN/Hearing notice or OIO etc.
Story one: As reported in Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Jaipur And Union Of India Through The Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, New Delhi - 2026 (4) TMI 1064 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT rejected the writ petition because, GVK was the best example to prove the English proverb 'to be the architect of one's own ruin'. The story began on 29/02/2024 when DRC 07 was issued. The original GST demand which was 3.39 Crores became a final demand amount including interest as well as 100% penalty to 14 Crores on 19/12/2025 when the DRC 13 was issued. The taxpayer pleaded before high court that he was not aware of the adjudication order passed in 2024 till bank attachment order was issued. This was not accepted by the high court due the fact that the taxpayer was supposed to open the portal for filing the GST returns so long as registration is live. Accordingly, the plea that they have shifted business was also not accepted.
This is disaster so far as the taxpayer is concerned as the stage is set for full recovery. The GST officials wished this to happen as they took the extreme step of bank attachment only in December 2025 whereas they could have very well done this after four months of passing the OIO as no first appeal was filed by then. This could have helped the taxpayer at writ level but as the delay was more than one year, the high court ruled as 'on 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'.
Story two: The second story pertains to the period 01/07/2017 to 31/03/2018. It is almost the same as story one except that DRC 07 was dated 29/01/2024. The court passed the order as '9. As an upshot, in view of similar writ petition for F.Y. 2018-19 having already been dismissed, as well as the petitioner having failed to avail the efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act and has filed the writ petition after 21 months from the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for filing the appeal without any cogent reason, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition'.
Comments: For all taxpayers other than GVK Jaipur. Strike the iron when it is hot to make things simpler. Any reasonable delay may be manageable whereas any abnormal delay ruins the case. Let us learn lessons from GVK Jaipur to act as fast as possible so as to totally avoid any possible damages at a later date. These two case laws of Rajasthan High Court (DB) may be conveniently taken to their advantage by the GST officials.
For GVK Jaipur. While I am not making any comments on the rulings of the high court, there are several contrary decisions. It appears that there are several grounds for further litigation by making the adjudicating authority as the first respondent. In the first place whether section 74 was properly invoked in line with CBIC instructions dated 13/12/2023 is to be verified as OIO was passed subsequently. In the second place, there is gross violation on the principles of natural justice by violation of section 75. The opportunity of personal hearing is the pillar for natural justice. In the third place, the communication was not effective one which nullifies the SCN. The adjudication officer must be made accountable for not making any recovery action on expiry of four months after passing of OIO as stay for 90% of disputed GST is available only on making 10% pre deposit and filing the first appeal. Because the non- timely action of the department, on recovery, the taxpayer did not understand well the consequences.
It is not the case that all the doors are fully closed. As per the recent rulings of the Tripura High Court which was again affirmed by Madras High Court, the DRC 07 is time barred for both the years. All the above points when argued holistically before Supreme Court may save GVK Jaipur.