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

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not entertainable. The petitioner has not filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and instead approached the High Court after a delay of almost 18 months. The Court relied on its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders VS. State of Bihar & Ors.), which held that writ applications filed beyond the statutory period of appeal are not entertainable, even if there are contentions regarding belated communication of the order or non-availability of alternative remedies. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. to emphasize that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, writ petitions should not be entertained ignoring that statutory dispensation. The Court further noted that entertaining a writ application filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay would frustrate the legislative intent. Therefore, the present writ application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kamini Developers Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an order dated 31.10.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for the period 2017-18, which imposed a demand of Rs. 7,93,920/- towards tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner claims the order was excessive, illegal, and unreasonable, and they were unaware of its passing until their advocate appeared for a hearing in another matter. They received a certified copy on 12.04.2025, after the statutory appeal period had expired. The petitioner also argues that the order is barred by res judicata and that the demand is based on imaginary data, as they constructed and supplied only 20 flats in the Shanti Kashi Mansion project, while the order pertains to 49 flats.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.10.2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being excessive, illegal, unreasonable, and passed without proper intimation to the petitioner? The petitioner contends that they were not properly intimated about the adjudication and only became aware of the order when their advocate appeared for a hearing in a related matter, receiving the certified copy after the statutory appeal period had expired. The revenue argues that the petitioner was properly served with notice under Section 73(1) and has an efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the impugned order is barred by the principle of res judicata, and whether the demand is based on imaginary data concerning the number of flats constructed and supplied by the petitioner? The petitioner argues that the subject matter pertains to the same property and that the respondent acted illegally by confirming demands for 49 flats when only 20 were constructed and supplied. The revenue contends that the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings and had an alternative remedy, and that the writ application was filed with inordinate delay.