Patna High Court
M/S Frontier Agrotech Private Limited vs The Joint Commissioner Of State Tax on 31 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1735 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Frontier Agrotech Private Limited, a Company Registered Under
Companies Act, 1956, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Shashi Bhushan
Kumar, aged about 41 years, (M), Son of Shri Ram Gulam Mahto, Resident of
Baswari, P.O.- Singhwara, P.S.- Singhwara, Dist.- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Patna South Circle- 2, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna South Circle-2, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Vishalaksh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Standing Counsel-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 31-01-2024
The petitioner engaged in the distribution of
pesticides, insecticides and other similar items is before this
Court challenging the assessment orders passed for the years
2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and for the period April, 2023 to July,
2023; produced in seriatim as Annexures 1 to 6. The petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1735 of 2024 dt.31-01-2024
invokes the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India despite the availability of statutory remedy of appeal;
which, it is the trite principle, cannot be done, as has been
reiterated in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement
Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499.
2. We notice the contours of the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with
appellable orders laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited &
Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499. It has been held that if an assessee
approaches the High Court without availing the alternate
remedy, it should be ensured that the assessee has made out a
strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction. While reiterating that Article 226 of
the Constitution confers very wide powers on the High Court, it
was clarified that nonetheless the remedy of writ is an
absolutely discretionary remedy. The High Court, hence, can
always refuse the exercise of discretion if there is an adequate
and effective remedy elsewhere. The High Court can exercise
the power only if it comes to the conclusion that there has been
a breach of principles of natural justice or due procedure
required for the decision has not been adopted. The High Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.1735 of 2024 dt.31-01-2024
would also interfere if it comes to a conclusion that there is
infringement of fundamental rights or where the orders and
proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of
an Act is challenged and when there is a clear abuse of process
of law. There is no such plea made by the petitioner in the
present case against the impugned orders.
3. We see from the grounds that the assessment orders
passed have been challenged as without jurisdiction and in
violation of principles of natural justice; but bland assertions
made without any substantiation thereof. The petitioner has also
made averments against the inspection conducted alleging that
the reasons to believe in the authorization of 12.08.2023 are
mere reproduction of the provisions of Section 67(1) of the
Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity 'BGST
Act'). Immediately, it is to be noticed that the authorization for
inspection through produced as Annexure-7, it has not been
challenged in the relief portion.
4. As for the other grounds, it has been contended that
the assessment has been made on various grounds of reversal of
Input Tax Credit of purchase returns having not been effected,
there being no legal grounds for demand, computation of
demand having not been properly substantiated, mismatch of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1735 of 2024 dt.31-01-2024
outward supply figures in the return for outward supplies vis-a-
vis figures in the e-way bill, utilization of Input Tax Credit on
account of GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch and the penalty
imposed on failure to furnish consumption details; all of which
are matters which could be challenged in appeal.
5. We cannot but observe that six assessment orders
have been challenged in one single writ petition; when every
assessment order gives rise to a separate cause of action. There
is no lack of jurisdiction alleged on the Assessing Officer to
proceed for assessment nor is it specifically pleaded that in the
course of assessment the Assessing Officer has travelled beyond
his jurisdiction. As we noticed, the lack of jurisdiction and the
absence of compliance with principles of natural justice have
been merely raised but not substantiated. Basically, the
petitioner challenges the order of assessment on multifarious
reasons which have been extracted in a table given to us across
the Bar which again speaks of reduced output liability on credit
notes, mismatch of outward supplies in GSTR-1 vis-a-vis e-way
bill, excess ITC utilization, penalty for failure to furnish
consumption details of fertilizers and so on and so forth.
6. We find no reason to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the assessment
Patna High Court CWJC No.1735 of 2024 dt.31-01-2024
orders passed at this stage.
7. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition
has been filed within the time provided for appeal; which alone
cannot be a reason to bypass the appellate remedy and invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction. We see that the orders for
Assessment Years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 (Annexure 1 to 5)
were passed on 31.10.2023. With respect to the said orders, the
appeal time stands expired today. The petitioner has still a
month's time to file an appeal with an application for
condonation of delay. With respect to Annexure-6 order, which
is for the period April 2023 to July, 2023, the order was passed
on 30.11.2023, which can be challenged within one month
without a delay condonation application and even within a
month thereafter, with proper explanation for the delay.
8. The writ petition having been filed within the
period provided for appeal, we deem it fit to direct the Appellate
Authority to consider the appeal filed against Annexures 1 to 5,
on merits, if it is filed within five weeks from today. In so far as
the other order, (Annexure-6) is concerned, the petitioner has
still one month time to file an appeal, as provided under the
'BGST Act' and then again a further month, with application to
condone delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1735 of 2024 dt.31-01-2024
9. We do not think that there need be any directions
issued with respect to the appeal against Annexure-6.
10. With the above liberty reserved, the writ petition
would stand dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Rajiv Roy, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 03.02.2024
Transmission Date
