M/S Dinesh Bihari Sharan vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The reasoning is based on the principle that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. The Court referred to the judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and other Supreme Court pronouncements, emphasizing that entertaining a writ petition filed after an unexplained delay, especially when a statutory appeal period has elapsed, frustrates the legislative intent and renders the statutory scheme otiose. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, etc.), the Court found that the present case, characterized by a failure to respond to notices and a significant delay in filing the writ petition, does not fall within such exceptional categories. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to file any reply to the notices and reminders and did not avail the opportunity for a personal hearing. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed on the grounds of delay and non-maintainability due to the availability of an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dinesh Bihari Sharan, a registered person engaged in supplying goods, including taxable and tax-free items, to government entities like jails, filed its GST returns for the period 2023-24. Following intimation in Form ASMT-10 and a show cause notice in Form DRC-01, along with several reminders, the petitioner failed to file a reply. The petitioner attributes this to its proprietor's age and dependency on others for GST compliance. The respondent-department proceeded to pass an order dated 29.04.2025 under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, determining the turnover at Rs. 4,50,05,108.01, levying tax at 18% on the entire amount, resulting in a demand of Rs. 74,13,676/-. The petitioner contends that a significant portion of this turnover pertains to tax-free goods. The department argues that the petitioner did not respond to notices and reminders, and an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, was available but not availed, with the writ petition filed after a delay of 18 months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the significant delay in filing the writ petition (approximately 18 months)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner implicitly argues that the writ petition is maintainable due to alleged procedural irregularities by the respondent-department, specifically the failure to afford a personal hearing and the erroneous determination of turnover, which included tax-free goods. The petitioner also sought a remand to the Assessing Officer. Respondent's arguments: The respondent-department contends that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the department argues that the writ petition is barred by delay, having been filed approximately 18 months after the impugned order, and that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notices and reminders, thereby not availing opportunities to present its case.