M/S Jai Bajrang vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court dismissed the writ application, holding that the facts of the case were squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same Court in CWJC No. 6180 (M.K. Traders Vrs State of Bihar & Ors.). The Court reiterated the principle that entertaining a writ application filed after an unexplained delay of approximately three years would frustrate the legislative intent and render the legislative scheme otiose. Citing a Supreme Court judgment in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., the Court noted that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition in exceptional circumstances (like breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires), the present writ application was filed beyond the statutory period for appeal and therefore could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the petitioner had not filed a satisfactory reply to the intimation notice and had not filed an appeal against the impugned order, choosing instead to file the writ petition after a delay of two years. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Bajrang, a proprietorship concern engaged in trading bricks, sand, and road transport services, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 21, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Sasaram Circle. The impugned order confirmed a demand of Rs. 10,41,976/-. The petitioner contended that they only became aware of this order on January 14, 2026, when a recovery notice was served. The petitioner had previously received an intimation of tax payable under Section 73(5) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, in Form DRC-01A, alleging excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period 2018-19, and demanding a total sum of Rs. 1,20,01,892/-. The petitioner's consultant had filed a response to this intimation. The revenue argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, but filed the writ petition after an inordinate delay of two years from the passing of the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated March 21, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the said Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated March 21, 2024, is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice? (Question of law) 3. Whether the recovery notice dated January 14, 2026, is illegal? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated March 21, 2024, is illegal and contrary to Section 73 of the CGST Act and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. They also sought to declare the recovery notice dated January 14, 2026, as illegal and sought to restrain recovery during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner claimed they only came to know of the order on January 14, 2026, when the recovery notice was served. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. They further argued that the petitioner filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of two years from the passing of the impugned order dated March 21, 2024, without availing the alternative remedy.