Surendra Rai vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Surendra Rai, challenged a demand notice dated March 3, 2020, which was issued pursuant to an assessment order dated January 15, 2020. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the assessment order. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which allows for an appeal within three months, and a further period of one month for delayed appeals with a satisfactory explanation. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed limitation period and filed a writ petition instead. The High Court noted that the appellate authority's power to condone delay is limited to the period specified in the statute.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision is the existence of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the stipulated time, and the limitation period for filing a delayed appeal had expired. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority's power to condone delay is restricted to the period explicitly provided by the statute. Therefore, the petitioner could not seek to avail the appellate remedy at this stage due to his own default. The Court found no grounds to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner attempted to bypass the appellate remedy. The writ petition was dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act was available but not availed by the petitioner due to his own default and expiry of the limitation period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, by filing a writ petition, sought to bypass the statutory appellate remedy. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the assessment order. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, implicitly through the court's reasoning, would argue that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time, and the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when a clear alternative remedy exists and has lapsed due to the petitioner's inaction. Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the contours of invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.