M/S. Pavitra Logistics vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court dismissed the writ application. It held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of approximately 14 months, which was beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal. Citing its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Court stated that entertaining a writ application with such unexplained delay would frustrate the legislative intent and render the legislative scheme otiose. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental right, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, challenge to vires), the Court found that the present case, filed beyond the statutory appeal period, did not warrant entertainment under Article 226. The Court also noted that the show cause notice was served on the common portal with reminders, and the petitioner failed to reply, thus not violating the principle of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pavitra Logistics, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 22, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna South Circle (Respondent No. 4). This order, passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, demanded a deposit of Rs. 55,01,568/- for the period 2020-21. The petitioner also sought to unfreeze its bank account. The proceedings were initiated based on data analyzed through Business Intelligence and Fraud Analysis (BIFA), comparing Income Tax returns with GSTR-9/GSTR-3B declarations and VAT turnover. A show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on September 22, 2023. The petitioner argued the order was illegal and Section 73 was inapplicable, as proper notice was not served under Section 169.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated February 22, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, is illegal and unsustainable in law, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 73 and the adequacy of notice served under Section 169 of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 73 of the BGST Act was not applicable to its case and that it was not issued notice or summons through the means of communication provided under Section 169 of the Act, rendering the impugned order illegal and improper. Revenue's contention: The respondent department contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. They further argued that the writ application was filed after a delay of approximately 14 months from the passing of the impugned order. The department asserted that a show cause notice was issued on November 20, 2024, followed by reminders, and communication was also sent via registered email and telephone, satisfying the principles of natural justice.