Brajesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Brajesh Kumar, a sole proprietorship, challenged two orders dated 12.03.2020 and 19.03.2020, which were demand notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sitamarhi Circle, pursuant to assessment orders. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 03.07.2023, although an affidavit was executed on 29.09.2021. The Court noted significant delays in the filing and re-filing of the petition, with the Registry indicating a draft was created on 01.10.2021, a new petition filed on 06.10.2021 which was not accepted, and a re-filing on 06.05.2023. The petitioner contended the petition was submitted online and never noticed as defective. The assessment orders themselves were not produced.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary issue was the petitioner's failure to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act. The Court noted that the impugned orders were demand notices arising from assessment orders, which are appealable. The petitioner had not filed any appeal, nor had they sought condonation of delay within the prescribed period, even considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation extension due to the pandemic. The Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an adequate and effective alternative remedy is available, unless there are grounds like breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights, none of which were pleaded or established by the petitioner. The Court also emphasized that statutory periods for delay condonation cannot be extended by the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, due to the petitioner's own failure to avail the appellate remedy and the absence of any exceptional grounds, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act is available and has not been availed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the petition was submitted online and defects were not noticed, implying a procedural issue that might warrant writ intervention. They also relied on the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 for extension of limitation due to the pandemic. Revenue's contention: The respondents implicitly argued, through the Court's reasoning, that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists. They highlighted the gross delay in filing and the absence of jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice.