M/S Shikhar Auto vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable. The Court referred to its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and a Supreme Court judgment in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. The Court found that the petitioner's delay of four years and ten months in filing the writ application after the impugned order was passed is an inordinate delay. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances (like breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, or excess of jurisdiction), the Court opined that entertaining a writ petition filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, without sufficient explanation for the delay, would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. Therefore, the Court concluded that the present writ application, filed after such a significant delay and without availing the statutory remedy of appeal, is not entertainable.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shikhar Auto, a proprietorship firm, seeks to quash a summary of order-cum-demand notice (Form GST DRC-07) dated January 22, 2020, issued by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Nawada Circle. The notice, referencing an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, imposed a demand of Rs. 6,95,978/- for the period April 2019 to June 2019, alleging wrong claims of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner claims they were not served with a show cause notice, and the order was only uploaded on the common portal. They contend that their supplier, M/s Shakti Enterprises, delayed filing GSTR-01, causing discrepancies in the petitioner's GSTR-3B.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the petitioner's delay in filing the writ petition? The petitioner argued that they were not served with a show cause notice, leading to a violation of natural justice, and that the impugned order was only served on the common portal. They also highlighted the supplier's delay in filing GSTR-01 as the cause of the discrepancy. The revenue department contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, but failed to avail it, filing the present writ application after an inordinate delay of four years and ten months from the date of the impugned order.