M/S INDIA Trading Co vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s India Trading Company, through its proprietor Sunila Kumari, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (respondent no.2) and an order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) (respondent no.3). The petitioner had filed annual returns for July 2017 to March 2018 and VAT returns for April 2017 to June 2017. The respondent authorities treated a turnover of Rs. 1,46,39,104.00/- as suppressed turnover under GST, issuing a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that this turnover belonged to the VAT regime. Despite the petitioner's explanation and lack of personal hearing, a liability of Rs. 71,55,218.00/- was imposed. An appeal to the Additional Commissioner was unsuccessful.
Held
The Court held that an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 112 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner filed the writ application on 18.03.2025, and during its pendency, notification S.O. 3502 (E) was issued, extending the timeline for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal up to 31.07.2026. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ application, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the learned appellate tribunal. The Court directed the appellate tribunal to consider the appeal on its merits without considering the question of limitation, provided it is filed within 12 weeks from the date of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ application is maintainable when an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the writ application is maintainable because the learned appellate tribunal was not functional at the time of filing. The respondent department contended that an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and that the tribunal is currently functional. The respondent cited notification S.O. 3502 (E) dated 30.06.2026, which extended the timeline for filing appeals.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1), Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR) 6 23-07-2026 Heard Alok Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Prasad, learned GP 07 for the respondent department.
In present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 07.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 and further for quashing of order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered person and is a proprietor of M/s India Trading Company, having GSTIN No- 10BOYPK2651G1ZX.
2/4
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for period July 2017 to March 2018, it has filed its annual return in Form GSTR-09 and reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C. It has also filed its VAT return in Form RT-1 for period April 2017 to June 2017, which was subsequently revised through RT-V.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent erroneously considered the turnover of Rs. 1,46,39,104.00/- as suppression of turnover under GST and has issued show cause notice in Form DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has submitted its reply in Form DRC-06, explaining that the said turnover pertains to the VAT regime and does not fall under the GST regime. Despite this, he was not afforded with the opportunity of personal hearing and vide order dated 07.12.2023, a liability of Rs. 71,55,218.00/- was imposed. In this regard, DRC-07 was issued on 09.12.2023. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the impugned order dated 07.12.2023, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who upheld the assessment order on 12.12.2024. 3/4
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ application has been filed on account of the fact that the learned appellate tribunal is not functional and submits that the present writ application is maintainable.
Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP 07 appearing for the respondent department submits that against the order dated 12.12.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before Appellate Tribunal available under Section 112 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, which at present is functional.
Heard the parties. Upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, this Court is of the opinion that alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the provision of Section 112 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. As per the notification S.O. 3502 (E) dated 30.06.2026, the petitioner is required to file its appeal by 31.07.2026. 11. In present case, since the petitioner has filed the present writ application on 18.03.2025 and during the pendency of the present writ application S.O. No. 3502(E) was issued, extending the timeline for filing of appeals before Appellate 4/4 Tribunal before 31.07.2026. 12. Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the learned appellate tribunal, if advised. If such an appeal is filed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of passing of the order, then the learned appellate tribunal is directed to consider the appeal so preferred by the petitioner on merit without going into the question of limitation, if any, in accordance with law.
Ashwin/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U
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.