1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 through its authorized person, has prayed for the following reliefs:

“[A] Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition.

[B] The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice dated 03-03-2020 in FORM GST DRC-01A as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.  

[C] Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to grant interim as well as Ad-interim reliefs and thereby restrain Respondents from initiating any further proceedings towards notice dated 03-03-2020 including attachment and recovery proceedings against the Petitioner.

[D] Cost of the Proceedings to the Petitioner.

[E] Your lordships may kindly be pleased to pass any other further order as deemed fit just and proper in the facts of the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The subject matter of challenge is the notice of intimation under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 of the amount of tax as ascertained by the authority. The impugned order is in the FORM GST DRC- 01A dated 03.03.2020 issued by the respondent No.2. By the impugned communication, the writ applicant has been informed about his liability to pay the tax, interest and penalty to the tune of ₹ 80,69,313/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirteen only).

3. The impugned communication further states that the failure on the part of the writ applicant in depositing the requisite amount referred to above may entail a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act, 2017.

4. Mr. Akshay Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, would submit that the impugned communication under Section 74(5) of the Act, 2017 is illegal and his second submission is with regard to the illegal access made in the business premises as provided under Section 71 of the Act, 2017.

5. We may clarify that so far as the second submission with regard to Section 71 of the Act, 2017 is concerned, the same is not the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The subject matter of challenge is only the legality and validity of the notice of intimation under Section 74(5) of the Act, 2017.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that a writ application challenging the notice of intimation in the FORM GST DRC-01A issued under Section 74(5) of the Act is not maintainable in law. It is just an intimation. It is up to the writ applicant whether to pay attention to such intimation or not. If the writ applicant deems fit to ignore it, the same may entail the consequence of further show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act, 2017. In any view of the matter, even if a further notice under Section 74(1) of the Act, 2017 is issued, an opportunity of hearing will definitely be given to the writ applicant before his actual liability is determined under the Act, 2017.  

7. In view of the above, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected.