M/S Sidhnath Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sidhnath Construction, challenged an assessment order dated 16.12.2020, 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 12.12.2022 due to being filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the assessment order. The State of Bihar and its tax authorities were the respondents. The Court noted a relevant notification issued by the Central Government.

Held

The Court acknowledged that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not permissible when a statutory remedy of appeal exists and has been dismissed on grounds of delay. However, the Court took note of Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the GST Council. This notification provides a mechanism for filing returns in certain circumstances, which would necessitate a redone assessment. The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to comply with the provisions of this notification. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment order or the dismissal of the appeal, but rather provided a procedural route based on the subsequent notification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain a challenge to an assessment order when a statutory appeal mechanism exists but was not availed within the prescribed time, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed as time-barred? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is before the High Court challenging the assessment order. (The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond filing the writ petition). Revenue's contention: The revenue's implicit contention is that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedy and the appeal was dismissed on delay. (The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments). Additionally, the Court considered the impact of Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023.