Pramod Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Pramod Kumar, challenged a demand notice issued pursuant to an assessment order dated April 10, 2023. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the assessment order. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This provision allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delayed appeals if a satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed limitation period and sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court after the limitation period had expired.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further period of one month for delayed appeals with a satisfactory explanation. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed limitation period. The Court reiterated the principle that when a statute provides for a specific period of limitation for appeals, the appellate authority does not possess the power to condone delays exceeding the period expressly provided. The attempt by the petitioner to bypass the appellate remedy, which he failed to avail due to his own default, cannot be countenanced. The Court found no grounds to invoke the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing the principles laid down in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was available but not availed by the petitioner due to his own default and expiry of the limitation period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory remedy by filing a writ petition. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the reasons for not availing the appeal. Revenue/State's contention: The revenue/state implicitly argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy and the petitioner's failure to avail it within the statutory period. The judgment relies on the principle that when a statute provides a specific remedy and a limitation period, the appellate authority cannot condone delays exceeding the statutory limit.
Sections Cited
Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 21-02-2024 The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges the demand notice pursuant to the assessment order passed on 10.04.2023, produced in the writ petition as Annexure-P1 and P2. The petitioner assessee does not have a case that the assessment order was not served on him as required under law. The petitioner also had a statutory remedy by way of an appeal 2/3 under Section 107 (4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The aforesaid provision requires an appeal to be filed within a period of three months and upon delay, to be filed within a further period of one month; which could also be considered if there is satisfactory explanation for the delay occasioned. The petitioner has not availed the remedy and at this point of time, cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior. It is also trite that when the statute provides for a period of limitation and also requires a delayed appeal to be filed within a specified period, the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay occasioned in excess of the period specifically provided under the statute.
The present writ petition is filed on the demand notice being issued, which is not permissible when there was an alternate efficacious remedy, which was not availed by the petitioner for reason of his own default. There are specific contours for invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been delineated in the State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499. 3. We find no such ground existing and in any event 3/3 the attempt of the petitioner to bypass the appellate remedy, which he chose to not avail of, cannot be countenanced. We, hence, dismiss the writ petition in limine.
ranjan/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.