M/S Kamini Engicons Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable due to the delay in filing and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court relied on its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal, which states that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum for redressal exists. The Court noted that the petitioner admitted receiving the show cause notice and did not file a reply for the period 2018-19. The petitioner also failed to prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated April 27, 2024, and filed the writ petition after a delay of approximately 14 months. The Court emphasized that entertaining a writ application filed after such a significant delay would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ application on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kamini Engicons Private Limited, is challenging two orders passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The first order, dated April 27, 2024, pertains to the period 2018-19 and imposes a liability of Rs. 36,30,032/-. The second order, dated August 31, 2024, relates to the period 2019-20 and imposes a liability of Rs. 85,24,666/-. The petitioner is engaged in construction and accepts its liability for GST. Show cause notices were issued for both periods, and the petitioner submitted a reply and adjudication order was passed for the period 2020-21, which the petitioner does not dispute. The petitioner initially challenged both orders in one writ petition. The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of a single writ petition for multiple periods. The petitioner then confined the writ application to the period 2018-19.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application challenging the order dated April 27, 2024, for the period 2018-19 is maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the delay in filing the writ petition. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, initially sought to challenge orders for two different periods in a single writ petition. Upon being confronted with a preliminary objection by the respondent regarding this procedural aspect, the petitioner confined the writ application to the period 2018-19. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the GST liability or the delay in filing the writ petition at this stage. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, against the impugned order. The respondent further contended that the petitioner filed the present writ application after an inordinate delay of 14 months from the date of the impugned order, making it not maintainable. The respondent also raised a preliminary issue that challenging orders for different periods in a single writ petition is not permissible.