Rajeev Prakash vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable due to the significant delay in filing and the existence of statutory remedies. The Court noted that the petitioner had admitted that the show cause notices were properly served on the common portal and communicated via SMS and email. Despite this, the petitioner failed to respond to the notices or file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Instead, the writ application was filed after a delay of more than four years. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal, emphasizing that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum is available for redressal. Furthermore, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in ACST Vrs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., the Court reiterated that while alternative remedies are not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances, a writ petition filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, as in this case, should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found that entertaining the writ application after such a delay would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ application without considering the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeev Prakash, proprietor of M/s Rajeev Prakash and M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging multiple orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. These orders, issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, confirmed demands for GST, interest, penalties, and late fees for various periods between April 2018 and March 2022. The petitioner contended that the show cause notices were based on presumptions without proper investigation, and that the orders were ex-parte. He also claimed that his outsourced accountant failed to inform him about the notices and orders, and that he had made all compliances to the best of his understanding. The proceedings were confined to the year 2018-19 by an order dated 24.07.2026. The petitioner filed the writ application on 24.03.2026, alleging belated communication of orders and non-availability of alternative remedies due to the GST Tribunal not being functional.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of statutory remedies under the GST Act, 2017, and the significant delay in filing the petition? 2. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of being ex-parte, based on presumption without investigation, and due to non-communication to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notices and subsequent orders were issued based on mere presumptions without any investigation. He claimed that his outsourced accountant failed to notify him of any notices or orders, leading to his lack of knowledge. He also contended that the alternative remedy of appeal was not practically available due to the non-functioning of the GST Tribunal and that the orders were not properly communicated. He sought quashing of the orders and any other appropriate relief. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent department argued that the show cause notices were properly served on the petitioner through the common portal, SMS, and email. They contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the notices and did not file an appeal against the impugned orders within the statutory period. The department relied on Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal and CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. to argue that writ petitions should not be entertained when statutory remedies exist and there is a delay in approaching the court.