M/S Eta General Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

M/s Eta General Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging a demand notice dated 03.01.2023, which was issued pursuant to an assessment order dated 25.01.2022. The petitioner did not dispute the service of the assessment order. The State of Bihar (the respondent) is the revenue authority. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. This provision allows for filing an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delayed appeals if a satisfactory explanation is provided. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed limitation period.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which allows for filing an appeal within three months and a further one month for delayed appeals with a satisfactory explanation. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed limitation period, and the appellate authority does not have the power to condone delays exceeding the statutory period. The Court found no grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner attempted to bypass the appellate remedy due to their own default. The judgment dismissed the writ petition in limine. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226, particularly when the petitioner's own inaction has led to the expiry of the limitation period for such remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available but has not been availed by the petitioner due to expiry of the limitation period. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory remedy. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or reasons for not availing the appeal. Respondent's argument: The State contended that the writ petition is not permissible as the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which was not availed due to the petitioner's own default and the expiration of the limitation period. They relied on the principle laid down in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the contours for invoking extraordinary remedies.