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

Held

The Court held that the writ application was not maintainable. Citing the judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders VS. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Court emphasized that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, but did not avail it. Furthermore, the Court found that the writ application was filed with an "indolent approach" and after a significant delay, which would frustrate the legislative intent and render the legislative scheme otiose. The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., which restrain High Courts from entertaining writ applications filed beyond the statutory period of appeal. The Court concluded that in the present case, the writ application filed beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and thus, the Court had no occasion to enter into the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kamini Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ application challenging an Adjudication Order (Form DRC-07) dated 02.11.2023, for the period 2018-19, which raised a GST demand of Rs. 27,64,724.00. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing and that they only became aware of it after the statutory appeal period had expired. They also argued that the demand was excessive, based on imaginary data, and related to 49 flats when only 20 were constructed. The respondent department argued that the petitioner was duly served with a notice under Section 73(1) and had prior intimation under Section 73(5). They further submitted that an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act was available but not availed, and the writ petition was filed after a significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017 is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, rendering it illegal and unreasonable. They claimed to have learned about the order only after the statutory period for filing an appeal had lapsed. They also contended that the order was based on imaginary data and an incorrect number of flats constructed. The petitioner relied on the principle of res judicata and argued that the respondent acted illegally. Respondent's arguments: The respondent department argued that the petitioner was properly served with notices and had prior intimation of the assessment. They asserted that the petitioner had an equal and 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 writ application was filed after a considerable delay, exceeding 18 months, and that a previous writ petition (CWJC No. 9255/2025) was disposed of with liberty to file separate applications for respective financial years.