M/S Heba Printing Works vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It acknowledged that the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted. However, the Government of India had issued Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST on July 11, 2024, providing certain instructions to taxpayers. The Court permitted the petitioner to avail the benefit of this circular. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the validity of the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Heba Printing Works, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Patna City West Circle, and the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Patna East Division. The Assistant Commissioner, in an order dated February 15, 2024, and a consequential order dated February 19, 2024, issued under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, 2017, demanded tax, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,31,93,858.02 for the financial year 2020-2021. The petitioner's appeal against this demand was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) on November 22, 2024. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders and the consequential demand notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) through a writ petition, given the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued for the setting aside of the orders passed by the revenue authorities. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments regarding the writ jurisdiction, but the filing of the petition implies a challenge to the validity or process of the impugned orders. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the existence of the orders and the demand notice implies the revenue's position that the actions taken were lawful and justified under the BGST Act.