Ram Krishna Mission Ashrama vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Ram Krishna Mission Ashrama, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders for the years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, both dated February 13, 2021. The petitioner claimed they had no prior information about these orders and that notices were not properly served. They contended that the assessment orders were ex parte and only came to their notice when a bank account attachment notice was issued. The petitioner argued that physical notice was not issued, and that electronic service during the Covid period was inappropriate. The revenue contended that notices and orders were uploaded to the portal, which is a valid mode of service, and that the petitioner failed to claim input tax credit in accordance with the Act.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-receipt of physical notice was not a valid ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 169 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits service through various modes, including electronic upload to the portal, which was done. The Court found the argument against electronic service during the Covid period to be 'intriguing,' noting that it became more commonplace and expedient during that time. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Supreme Court's decision in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods, and even with the provision for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, the petitioner did not file an appeal. The Court reiterated that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be invoked when an adequate alternate remedy exists, unless there are strong grounds such as breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error, which were not established by the petitioner. The Court found no jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, or abuse of process averred or argued by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders dated February 13, 2021, for the years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 are liable to be set aside on the ground of improper service of notice and assessment orders, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under Section 169 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the assessment orders by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they did not receive physical notice of the assessment proceedings and that the assessment orders were ex parte. They also contended that electronic service during the Covid period was inappropriate. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that notices and orders were uploaded to the portal, which is a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They also argued that the petitioner failed to claim input tax credit in accordance with the provisions of the Act and did not avail the statutory appellate remedy.