Pankaj Kumar vs. State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, directly approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 09.10.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy available under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act. The court noted that the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022. Furthermore, Section 107(4) of the BGST Act provides for condonation of delay within one month of the expiry of the limitation period, suggesting an appeal could have been filed by 28.06.2022. The petitioner did not file any appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to make out a strong case or show good grounds to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr., that the writ remedy is discretionary and should not be exercised if an adequate and effective alternative remedy exists. The Court found that the petitioner had not availed the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed time, including the condonation period. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not pleaded any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, or abuse of process of court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition due to the gross delay and the failure to exhaust statutory remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a strong case or shown good grounds to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy? 2. Whether the High Court should interfere with an assessment order when the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner directly approached the High Court without availing the statutory remedy. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner, but implies they sought to challenge the assessment order regarding computation of turnover and tax payable. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the State Goods and Services Tax authorities, implicitly argued that the petitioner had an adequate and effective alternative remedy through the appellate process under the BGST Act. They would have contended that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction when statutory remedies are available and have not been exhausted.