Satyendra Prasad Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the significant delay in filing the writ petition. The Court referred to its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. These precedents emphasize that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum exists for redressal, especially when filed beyond the statutory period. The Court noted that the petitioner admitted to his Chartered Accountant viewing the show cause notice, and service was not disputed. The petitioner's indolent approach in not responding to the show cause notice and failing to file a statutory appeal, instead filing a writ petition after a delay of almost 20 months, rendered the petition non-entertainable. The Court explicitly stated that entertaining a writ petition filed after such a delay would frustrate the legislative intent. The issue of exemption for food grain transportation was not decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Satyendra Prasad Singh, engaged in transporting food grains for the Government of Bihar and India, challenges an order dated February 19, 2025, issued under Section 79 of the CGST/BGST Act, directing recovery of tax from his bank. He also challenges an order dated April 25, 2024, by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Saran Circle, imposing a demand of Rs. 2,17,96,454/- towards tax, interest, and penalty under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that the transportation of food grains is exempted from tax, citing a Service Tax notification and a prior assessment order for 2016-17. The revenue department contends that the petitioner, despite receiving substantial payments for supplies, failed to declare or pay tax for the period 2018-19. A show cause notice was issued on December 28, 2023, to which the petitioner did not reply, leading to the demand order. The department also points out the petitioner's failure to file an appeal within the statutory period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner's failure to avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the significant delay in filing the writ petition? 2. Whether the transportation of food grains by the petitioner is exempted from GST? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the transportation of food grains is exempted from taxation, relying on Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax and a previous assessment order for 2016-17 under the Service Tax Act where recovery proceedings were dropped due to exemption applicability. The petitioner also implicitly argues that the demand order and recovery proceedings are erroneous. Revenue's arguments: The respondent department argues that the petitioner failed to file a reply to the show cause notice issued for the period 2018-19, despite being registered and having filed returns. They detected undeclared income from AS-26 statements, leading to the demand. Crucially, the department argues that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, which was not availed. The writ petition was filed after a delay of approximately 20 months, far exceeding the statutory appeal period of three months, making it non-entertainable.