M/S Aditya Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aditya Enterprises, through its proprietor Sushil Kumar, challenged a demand notice dated 27.12.2020 and an assessment order passed on the same date. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the assessment order. Despite initially pleading that an appeal had been filed, the petitioner's counsel later conceded that no appeal was filed. The petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which prescribes a period of three months for filing an appeal, extendable by one month with a satisfactory explanation for delay. The petitioner did not file an appeal within the extended period, even considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary issue was the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had a clear statutory avenue for redressal, which involved filing an appeal within three months, extendable by one month with sufficient cause. Even considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, the petitioner had ample time to file an appeal, but failed to do so. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be a substitute for availing statutory remedies, especially when the failure to do so is attributable to the petitioner's own default. Citing the principles laid down in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr., the Court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it in limine. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will not be entertained when an alternative efficacious remedy exists and the petitioner has failed to avail it due to their own inaction or default.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the existence of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which the petitioner failed to avail due to his own default? 2. Whether the petitioner can bypass the appellate remedy by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the limitation period for filing an appeal has expired? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the demand notice and assessment order through a writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the assessment or demand, nor does it mention any reliance on specific authorities or precedents by the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the State of Bihar, implicitly argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which he failed to pursue. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr. to delineate the contours for invoking writ jurisdiction.