Aditya Ceramics vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Aditya Ceramics, a partnership firm, challenged an assessment order dated 07.08.2019 passed under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order, but it was dismissed on 24.08.2022 due to being filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted a relevant notification, Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the GST Council.

Held

The Court acknowledged that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not permissible to challenge an assessment order and a subsequent order dismissing a delayed appeal, especially when statutory remedies have been exhausted or not properly availed. However, the Court took cognizance of Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the GST Council. This notification provided a mechanism for filing a return. In light of this notification, the Court found that the assessment would need to be redone. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned notification. The specific amount in dispute was not recorded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge an assessment order and a subsequent appellate order dismissing a delayed appeal, when statutory remedies were available and not properly availed. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable. While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the petitioner's act of filing the writ petition suggests a belief in the court's power to intervene. The petitioner likely relied on the subsequent notification to seek relief. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar, likely contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which was dismissed on merits (delay). They would have argued that the proper course would have been to challenge the appellate order or seek condonation of delay, not to bypass the statutory framework through a writ petition.