M/S. Jai Bajrang vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court dismissed the writ application. It held that the facts of the case were squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same High Court in CWJC No. 6180 (M.K. Traders Vrs State of Bihar & Ors.). The Court reiterated that entertaining a writ application filed after an unexplained delay of almost three years 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 rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, challenge to vires), the Court found that the present writ petition, filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the show cause notice was issued and served on the common portal, and the petitioner failed to file a reply or appeal against the impugned order, which involved an arithmetical calculation of interest. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 447.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jai Bajrang, a proprietorship concern dealing in bricks, sand, and road transport services, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 23, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Sasaram Circle. This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 12,52,464.31/- as interest for the period 2017-18, levied under Section 50 of the CGST Act, for delayed payment of admitted tax. The petitioner contended that it only became aware of this order on January 13, 2026, when a recovery notice was served via email, and sought to quash the order and the recovery notice. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to respond to the intimation notice (DRC-01A) and the subsequent adjudication order, and that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available but not availed, leading to an inordinate delay of three years in filing the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 23, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the said section? 2. Whether the impugned order dated January 23, 2023, is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice? 3. Whether the recovery notice dated January 13, 2026, is illegal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned adjudication order dated January 23, 2023, was illegal and contrary to Section 73 of the CGST Act, and also violative of the Principles of Natural Justice, as they only became aware of the order on January 13, 2026, upon receiving a recovery notice. They sought to quash the order and the recovery notice. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the intimation notice (DRC-01A) and the show cause notice. They further argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which they failed to avail, and that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of three years from the date of the impugned order.