M/S Bihar Steel vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in its current form due to the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the impugned orders were not uploaded, which prevented them from filing an appeal. To address this, the Court directed that if the concerned authority had not uploaded the impugned action, it should be done within one week. If uploaded, the petitioner should be informed of the uploading date. The Court further directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner's appeal without insisting on the limitation period, should such an appeal be filed. The Appellate Authority was also requested to expedite the appeal or consider any interim relief sought by the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demands raised against the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bihar Steel, through its proprietor Mohammed Ali Sekh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging several orders passed by the GST authorities. These orders, including Order No. 40/2024 dated 20.09.2024, Order No. 43/2024 dated 01.10.2024, an order dated 30.12.2024 under Section 74, Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.12.2024, and Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.12.2024, raised demands for GST liabilities, CGST, SGST, IGST, penalties, interest, and late fees. The demands pertained to the Financial Years 2017-18 to 2021-2022. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and notices, arguing that they had no other efficacious remedy. The respondents were the Union of India through the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Taxes and other GST officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court when the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, as per the principles laid down in State of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another (2025) 4 SCC 1? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had no other efficacious remedy and that the impugned orders were not uploaded, preventing them from invoking the appellate remedy. Revenue's contention: The respondents implicitly relied on the existence of a statutory appellate remedy, arguing that the writ petition should not be entertained without exhausting this remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of non-uploading of orders is a disputed issue not suitable for adjudication under Article 226.