M/S Rajesh Kumar Its Proprietor Rajesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable due to the petitioner's indolent approach and significant delays at multiple stages. The Court referred to its own judgment in CWJC no. 6180 of 2026 (M.K Traders vs State of Bihar & Ors.) and Supreme Court pronouncements in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. The Court found that the petitioner failed to file a reply to the show cause notice, filed a delayed appeal, and subsequently filed the writ application after a considerable delay of more than 4 months from the appellate order. The Court emphasized that entertaining a writ petition filed after such unexplained delays would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. The petitioner's reliance on M/s Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd. was deemed misconceived, as the cited judgment did not record any finding on the petitioner's contention regarding daily checking of the common portal. Therefore, the writ application was dismissed on the ground of delay.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajesh Kumar, a proprietorship concern, is challenging two orders: one dated 04.03.2024 passed under Section 73(9) by the Adjudicating Authority and another dated 20.11.2024 by the Appellate Authority, concerning the tax period 2022-23. The petitioner's GSTIN is 10AEVPK6551P3ZU. The revenue alleged tax evasion of Rs. 2,91,096/ on a total payment of Rs. 21,65,834/ received from government agencies. The petitioner claims the respondent department issued a show cause notice dated 12.08.2023 and subsequent reminders, but did not afford ample opportunity for hearing. The petitioner's appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order was rejected by the Appellate Authority solely on grounds of limitation. The petitioner contends that their case is covered by a previous High Court judgment regarding the common portal notice. The respondents argue that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on the common portal, multiple reminders were sent, and despite efforts, the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the impugned order. They also state the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period, and the Appellate Authority correctly rejected it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and subsequent delays in filing the appeal and the writ petition, thereby circumventing statutory remedies? (Section 73, Section 107, Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 2. Whether the petitioner's reliance on the judgment in M/s Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. is valid, particularly concerning the obligation to check the common portal daily? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the respondent department failed to provide ample opportunity for hearing. They contend that their case is covered by the High Court's judgment in M/s Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which supports their argument that they are not required to visit the common portal daily to check for notices. They also seek to set aside the orders passed by the Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent department argues that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 12.08.2023, uploaded on the common portal, with a 30-day response period. Despite multiple reminders and phone calls, the petitioner did not respond. The appeal filed under Section 107 was beyond the statutory period of 3 months, and the Appellate Authority correctly rejected it as it lacked the power to condone delays beyond 120 days. They also cite Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and periods.