Ritesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2390 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7231 of 2023
     ======================================================

Ritesh Kumar Son of Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Dihpali, P.S.- Paliganj, Paliganj Patna (Bihar) PIN- 801110

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner Cum Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of BGST, Danapur Circle, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akrity Aishwarya, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mr. Vikash Kumar ( SC-11 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 15-05-2023

The above writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of

certiorari against the order dated 11.08.2022, passed under

Section-73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the order was

passed without giving prior opportunity to the petitioner and

without affording a hearing; clearly a violation of the principles

of natural justice. The petitioner, on the above contention, alleges Patna High Court CWJC No. 7231 of 2023 dt.15-05-2023

that there is an apparent mistake in the petitioner having wrongly

entered input tax credit (ITC), which can be cured with the

revision of returns. The petitioner prays for an opportunity to

revise the returns. It is also claimed that, if such a relief is not

granted, then the tax authorities be directed to consider the

amount entered in a different column as the actual amount of

ITC. The petitioner also seeks a stay of the demand and

withdrawal of the attachment of the bank accounts of the

petitioner.

The petitioner obviously has not filed an appeal against

the order which remedy is available under the BGST Act as per

Section-107. In fact, the petitioner claims in the writ petition

itself that after filing the returns, the petitioner had received a

message from respondent No.2, the Assessing Officer, and on

approaching him, he was told that nothing will happen due to the

pandemic situation. It is also stated that thereafter in the order

two notices dated 08.03.2022 and 15.03.2022 were referred to.

The petitioner does not deny the same, but only says that if it was

sent, he has not received it. It is also stated that the mobile

number entered in the GST Portal of the petitioner belongs to the

son of the petitioner, who was living in Patna and if the message

had come in his mobile, it would have been deleted by his son. Patna High Court CWJC No. 7231 of 2023 dt.15-05-2023

In fact, the averments of the petitioner would indicate that he has

been lax in following up on the notices issued by the Tax

Authorities. The mobile number in which the messages come has

been given by the petitioner to the Tax Authorities and he cannot

claim ignorance on the ground that his son, who had the said

mobile number, would have deleted the messages. This Court

finds no reason to countenance the grounds taken by the

petitioner or find that no notice was issued to him nor a hearing

afforded; from the averments in the writ petition itself.

The extraordinary remedy under Article-226 does not

inure to the benefit of the assesses, who are not diligent in

raising their claims before the appellate authorities. The learned

Government Pleader also specifically refers to Sub-Section(9) of

Section-39, providing for the time within which any omission or

incorrect particular noticed by an assessee in the return furnished

can be rectified. The proviso under Section 39(9) clearly

interdicts any prayer for rectification after the due date, inter alia

of the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return. The

petitioner cannot invoke such remedy before this Court and the

contention taken that there is no method by which omissions or

mistakes can be rectified as per the Statute cannot be sustained.

The remedy provided, however, has to be availed in the time Patna High Court CWJC No. 7231 of 2023 dt.15-05-2023

provided, after which there could be no such rectifications carried

out.

The writ petition, hence, stands dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J) sharun/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          18.05.2023
Transmission Date       N/A