M/S Pam-G Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s PAM-G Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 20.11.2021. The petitioner claimed to have only become aware of a demand raised against them when their account was closed by the Sales Tax Authority in March 2023. However, the petition itself was filed almost three years after the order, and the petitioner did not provide specific dates for when the account was closed or when they became aware of it. The Court noted that the statutory appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017, had a time limit of 3 months, extendable by 1 month with condonation, which was not availed. The writ petition was therefore considered delayed.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was significantly delayed, and Article 226 is not a substitute for a statutory appeal when the time for filing such an appeal has expired. However, the Court then referred to a special procedure prescribed under a Notification, which allowed for appeals to be filed on or before January 31, 2024, against orders under Section 73 or 74. This notification also stipulated conditions for maintainability, including paying the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax, with specific requirements for payment from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 20.11.2021, satisfying the conditions laid out in paragraph 3 of the Notification, by the stipulated deadline of 31.01.2024. If filed accordingly, the appeal would be considered on merits. The writ petition was allowed on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the significant delay in filing, especially when a statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017, was available and not availed within the prescribed time limits? 2. Whether the petitioner can avail the special procedure prescribed under a Notification (paragraphs 2-6) for filing an appeal, and if so, what are the conditions precedent for such an appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they only realized there was a demand against them after their account was closed by the Sales Tax Authority, which led to their awareness of the order. They implicitly sought relief through the writ petition due to this delayed realization. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the writ petition was delayed by almost three years and that Article 226 is not a remedy to be availed after the time for filing a statutory appeal has expired. They also highlighted the petitioner's failure to file an appeal within the stipulated period.