Tarkeshwar Yadav vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application was not maintainable due to the inordinate delay and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner received the show cause notice, filed a reply, and the reply was considered and found unacceptable by the adjudicating authority. Against the order dated October 7, 2024, an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act was available. However, the petitioner filed the writ application after approximately fifteen months, which was beyond the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal. Citing the judgment in M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., the Court stated that entertaining a writ application filed after such a delay would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances like breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, the Court found that the delay in this case precluded it from considering the matter on merits. Therefore, the writ application was dismissed on the ground of delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Tarkeshwar Yadav, a proprietary concern, challenged a show cause notice dated April 24, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siwan, for the tax period 2021-22, and a subsequent order dated October 7, 2024, passed by the same authority. The show cause notice alleged Input Tax Credit (ITC) mismatch and wrong availment of ITC under Section 17(5) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, 2017, specifically concerning the purchase of a tractor. The petitioner filed a reply on August 3, 2024, arguing that the tractor was used for transporting goods and passengers and thus not covered by Section 17(5). The respondent department contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which was not availed, and the writ application was filed after a significant delay of fifteen months, beyond the statutory period for appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, and the delay in filing the writ application. 2. Whether the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing in violation of Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, leading to the impugned order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated October 7, 2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017, was passed without granting a further opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017. They relied on their reply and supporting documents to justify the ITC availment. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent department argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, which was not availed. They further contended that the writ application was filed after an inordinate delay of fifteen months, well beyond the statutory period for appeal, and that the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice was not an exceptional circumstance to entertain the writ petition. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. and a previous High Court judgment in M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.