M/S Samaiera Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application was not maintainable due to unexplained delay and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. Citing its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.), the Court emphasized that entertaining a writ petition filed after a significant delay (approximately 15 months in this case) would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition in exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental right, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, challenge to vires), the Court found that the present writ application, filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the show cause notices were served on the common portal, no reply was filed by the petitioner, and the demand order was passed within the extended limitation period, which was upheld by this Court in another case. The issue regarding digital signatures was also decided against the petitioner in a previous judgment. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition without considering the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Samaiera Enterprises, challenged a show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 (Form DRC-01) and a demand order dated 06.04.2024 (Form DRC-07) issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna North and Patna East. The demand of Rs. 91,28,849/- for the period 2018-19 was raised under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged a bank attachment order dated 25.03.2025 and Notification No. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued without Form DRC-01A, was barred by limitation, and that no personal hearing was granted, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue argued that the petitioner failed to file annual returns and reconciliation statements, and that the show cause notice was issued after detection of non-compliance. The revenue also asserted that the demand order was within the extended limitation period and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 26.12.2023, issued for the period 2018-19, is barred by limitation as provided under Section 73(2) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, considering it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed period from the date of filing of the return? (Question of law) 2. Whether the demand order dated 06.04.2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is invalid due to violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing and the alleged non-issuance of Form DRC-01A? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the bank attachment order dated 25.03.2025 is legally sustainable? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether Notification No. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023 is unconstitutional and against Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The show cause notice was issued without the prerequisite Form DRC-01A, violating Rule 26(3) of CGST/BGST Rules and principles of natural justice. The notice and demand order were barred by limitation under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The bank attachment order was non-est. Notification No. 09/2023 was against Article 20(1) of the Constitution as no force majeure clause was present. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner failed to file annual returns and reconciliation statements. The show cause notice was issued in response to this non-compliance. The demand order was passed after the petitioner failed to respond. The impugned order was within the extended limitation period as per Notifications 09/2023 and 56/2023, the validity of which was upheld by this Court. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing, and documents uploaded on the GST portal are digitally signed. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, and the writ petition is delayed by approximately 15 months.