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

Held

The Court dismissed the writ application. It held that the present case is covered by a previous judgment of the same Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders VS. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Court reiterated the principle that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. Even if the petitioner's contentions regarding belated communication and the non-availability of an alternative remedy were accepted, the writ application, filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of almost 18 months, is not entertainable. The Court emphasized that entertaining a writ application filed after such a 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 principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, challenge to vires), the Court found that filing a writ petition beyond the statutory period of appeal, as in this case, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's indolent approach in not filing the statutory appeal and approaching the High Court after an inordinate delay was noted.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kamini Developers Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an order dated 07.11.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for the period 2020-21. This order raised a demand of Rs. 28,15,178/- towards tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner claims the adjudication order was excessive, illegal, and unreasonable, and they were unaware of its passing until their advocate appeared for a hearing in another case. They received a certified copy of the impugned order on 12.04.2025, after the statutory appeal period had expired. The petitioner also argues that the order is barred by res judicata, as it pertains to the same property (Shanti Kashi Mansion) and the demand is based on imaginary data for 49 flats, while only 20 flats were constructed and supplied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.11.2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is barred by the principle of res judicata, considering the subject matter pertains to the same property and the petitioner argues it is based on imaginary data for 49 flats when only 20 were constructed and supplied? 2. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the petitioner's alleged lack of knowledge of the impugned order and the expiry of the statutory appeal period before receiving a certified copy? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the order is barred by res judicata as it concerns the same property and is based on imaginary data for 49 flats when only 20 were constructed. They also argue that the order was not properly intimated, and they only became aware of it after the appeal period had expired, making the statutory remedy unavailable. They further claim the order is excessive, illegal, and unreasonable. Revenue's arguments: The respondent department argues that the petitioner was properly served with a show cause notice dated 17.02.2023 and had intimation of assessment under Section 73(5) on 06.01.2023. They assert that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which they failed to avail. The department also points out that the petitioner filed a previous writ petition (CWJC No. 9255/2025) which was disposed of, and the present writ application was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 18 months.