Ram Kumud Thakur, Having Its Registered Office At Shahpur vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Ram Kumud Thakur, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an assessment order dated 13.11.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Darbhanga Circle. The petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation had extended the period of limitation due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Therefore, an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022, a remedy the petitioner failed to pursue.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner had failed to diligently avail this remedy within the stipulated time, even considering the extension granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The Court found no reason to bypass the statutory appeal process when the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing it. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where alternative remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them. The operative direction was that the writ petition stands dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner has failed to avail it within the stipulated time, including the extended period granted by the Supreme Court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing a writ petition, implicitly sought the court's intervention. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the merits of the assessment order or the reasons for not filing the appeal. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, the State of Bihar through its tax authorities, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the petitioner's failure to pursue it diligently.