Aditya Ceramics vs. The State Of Bihar
Facts
The petitioner, Aditya Ceramics, challenged an assessment order dated 11.09.2019 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 25.08.2022 due to being filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Act. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 is generally not permissible for challenging an assessment order when statutory remedies have been exhausted or are time-barred. However, the Court took note of Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Central Government based on GST Council recommendations. This notification provides 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 Court did not explicitly decide on the maintainability of the writ petition in the absence of the notification.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge an assessment order when statutory remedies have been exhausted or time-barred, and which provision of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is relevant to the maintainability of the appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is before this Court challenging the assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue's contention is implicitly that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had a statutory remedy (appeal) which was dismissed due to delay under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 62, Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Juri iction Case No.877 of 2023 ====================================================== Aditya Ceramics, a partnership firm having address at 706, Surya Vihar Apartment, Exhibition Road, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna, through its Partner namely Sushil Kumar Pansari, male, aged abouty 50 years, son of Binod Kumar Pansari, resident of Pushp Vihar Apartment, Exhibition Road, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of State Tax, Bihar having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
The Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division, Patna.
The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Gandhi Maidan Circle, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Parijat Saurav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vivek Prasad (GP-7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOUR
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.