M/S Binod Kumar Yadav Through Its Proprietor, Binod Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Binod Kumar Yadav, challenged an assessment order dated January 20, 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Patna South Circle. Despite the existence of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner did not file an appeal. The petitioner contended that the order was ex-parte and passed without notice. The Department asserted that notices were sent via the GST Portal. The petitioner claimed to have discovered a show-cause notice dated December 11, 2020, and the final order dated January 20, 2021, after inquiring with the Department and verifying 'additional notices and orders' on the portal, admitting failure to verify the portal where notices and orders are uploaded.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Regarding Issue 1, the Court found that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to file an appeal against the assessment order dated January 20, 2021. While the petitioner claimed the order was ex-parte, the Court observed that the petitioner had eventually found the show-cause notice and the final order on the GST portal, indicating a failure to properly verify it. Regarding Issue 2, the Court noted that Section 107(4) of the Act provides a three-month period for appeal, with a further one-month period for delayed appeals with a satisfactory explanation. The Court also acknowledged the Supreme Court's order extending limitation due to the pandemic (March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, plus three months for initiating proceedings/appeals). However, the petitioner had not availed this remedy within the stipulated periods. Therefore, having failed to exhaust the statutory remedy, the petitioner could not invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable challenging an assessment order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal exists, and if so, under what circumstances? 2. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the available statutory remedies, including the period for filing an appeal and any condonation of delay provisions? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was ex-parte and passed without proper notice, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which provided a period of limitation extension due to the pandemic. The respondent State contended that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.