Karmendra Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable in its current form because the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that the petitioner directly filed the writ application without approaching the Appellate Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum for challenging the order of rejection of the refund application. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court further directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider it on its merits without raising an objection regarding the delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Karmendra Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Patna City, East Circle. This order rejected the petitioner's refund application amounting to Rs. 4,44,940.60 for the financial year 2020-21. The State counsel pointed out that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without first filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of rejection. The petitioner's refund application was rejected by the Joint Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's contention is that the writ petition is maintainable. The revenue's contention is that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order of rejection and should have approached the Appellate Tribunal first. The revenue relies on the availability of the remedy under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.