M/S Kamini Developers PVT. LTD vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application was not maintainable. The Court referred to its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders VS. State of Bihar & Ors.) dated 14.07.2026. The reasoning in that judgment, which was applied here, stated that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. Even if contentions regarding belated communication of the order and non-availability of alternative remedy were accepted, a writ application filed with significant delay (in the cited case, over three years, and in the present case, approximately 18 months) is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that entertaining a writ application filed after such unexplained 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, the Court reiterated that a writ petition filed beyond the statutory period for appeal may not be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226. Therefore, the present application, filed after a delay of almost 18 months, was dismissed as not maintainable.

Facts

M/s Kamini Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ application challenging an Adjudication Order dated 09.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (Respondent No. 2) for the period 2019-20. The order raised a demand of Rs. 43,50,304/- towards tax, penalty, and interest. The Petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and they only became aware of it when their advocate appeared for another hearing. They received a certified copy of the order on 12.04.2025, after the statutory period for appeal had expired. The Petitioner also argued that the order was based on imaginary data regarding 49 flats, whereas they had only constructed and supplied 20 flats in the Shanti Kashi Mansion project, and that the subject matter was the same as in different financial years, invoking the principle of res judicata.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudication Order dated 09.11.2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of an opportunity of hearing, and for being based on imaginary data and exceeding the number of flats constructed by the petitioner? - Petitioner's Argument: The Adjudicating Authority passed the order without affording any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner only came to know about the order when their advocate appeared for a hearing in another case, and received the certified copy after the statutory appeal period had expired. Furthermore, the order was based on imaginary data concerning 49 flats, while the petitioner had only constructed 20 flats, making the demand excessive and illegal. The petitioner also argued that the matter was barred by res judicata as it concerned the same property across different financial years. 2. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, and the delay in approaching the High Court? - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the statutory appeal remedy was rendered ineffective due to the delay in receiving the order, which prevented them from filing within the prescribed period. They also relied on the principle of res judicata. - Revenue's Argument: The Respondent department contended that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and was properly served notice under Section 73(1) of the BGST Act, 2017. They argued that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, which they failed to avail. The department also pointed out that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 9255/2025) which was disposed of, and the present application was filed after a delay of approximately 18 months, making it liable for rejection.