Rule 142 intimation on liability for sale of rough stone and gravel: petition dismissed; respondent to decide reply after hearing

Challenge to an intimation under Rule 142(1A) and 142(2A) concerning liability for sale of mineral rough stone and gravel was rejected as the petitioner had filed a representation and participated in proceedings, rendering the writ petition not maintainable; consequently the petition was dismissed. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioners reply dated 12.12.2025, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order before initiating any coercive action.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A (issued under Rule 142(1A) and 142(2A) read with Sections 73(5) and 74(5) of the GST enactments) is maintainable and whether the proceedings should be stayed or stalled pending adjudication.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the statutory intimation and relied on earlier Supreme Court interim directions; that interim order was limited in scope and not applicable to the present facts. The petitioner had submitted a substantive reply/representation to the impugned notice and participated in the departmental proceedings, which bears on the question of maintainability of the writ petition at the admission stage. Given participation and availability of statutory remedies, the petition cannot be allowed to stay the statutory proceedings. Nonetheless, the reply submitted by the petitioner requires consideration on merits and a decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing. The respondent must pass a reasoned order before initiating any coercive steps.

Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable for the purpose of stalling the statutory proceedings and is dismissed; however, the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 12.12.2025, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order on merits before taking any coercive action.

---