In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court dealt with a writ petition filed by a business entity challenging GST recovery and penalty orders issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act. The petitioner alleged procedural lapses in the issuance and uploading of the impugned orders, arguing that such lapses obstructed its right to file an appeal. The Court, while not entertaining the writ petition on merits, allowed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority and directed that the appeal be accepted without applying the limitation period.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The case was initiated by a private business (the petitioner) involved in manufacturing and trading activities. The petitioner challenged several orders issued by the GST authorities, including demand orders, penalty orders, and show cause notices covering the financial years 2017–18 to 2021–22. These orders, issued by the Superintendent of CGST, Banka Range, included the following demands:
- GST liability amounting to ₹19,20,423
- Central GST and State GST of ₹5,93,695 each
- Interest of ₹7,45,730 under Section 50 of the CGST Act
- Late fee of ₹20,000 under Section 47
- Penalties under Sections 74, 122, and 125 totaling over ₹19 lakh
The petitioner sought to quash these demands by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the orders were not uploaded on the GST portal, and therefore, they could not exercise their right to appeal within the statutory period.
However, the High Court observed that an effective and alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under the CGST Act. The Court emphasized that without exhausting this remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council [(2025) 4 SCC 1], which underscores the principle that High Courts should avoid entertaining writ petitions where a statutory remedy exists.
That said, the Court took note of the petitioner’s concern that the impugned order was not uploaded, thus preventing timely filing of an appeal. Since this was a disputed factual issue, the High Court declined to adjudicate it under writ jurisdiction but directed the concerned authority to ensure the order is uploaded within one week if not already done. The department was also directed to inform the petitioner of the upload date.
Most significantly, the Court ordered that if the petitioner files an appeal, the Appellate Authority must entertain it without insisting on compliance with the limitation period, thus protecting the petitioner’s access to remedy.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is significant as it reinforces the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. However, the Court also showed sensitivity to practical issues such as technical lapses in uploading orders, which may affect a litigant’s ability to seek redress. By instructing the Appellate Authority to waive the limitation period, the judgment ensures access to justice even in the face of administrative shortcomings.
For businesses and taxpayers, this case highlights the importance of checking the GST portal regularly for notices and orders and maintaining a proper communication trail. It also shows that while writ petitions are not the default route for challenging tax demands, courts may still offer relief where procedural fairness is compromised.
For tax authorities, this judgment serves as a reminder of their obligation to timely upload and communicate orders so as not to infringe upon the rights of the taxpayer.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy
✅ Held: No. Petitioner must first approach the Appellate Authority. - Whether the appeal could be filed beyond the prescribed limitation due to non-uploading of the order
✅ Held: Yes. Appellate Authority to accept appeal without insisting on limitation. - Whether the High Court could adjudicate the factual dispute regarding uploading of the order
❌ Held: No. Such factual disputes are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. - What directions were issued to the department regarding the uploading of orders
✅ Held: Department must upload the order within one week and communicate the date.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- State of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, (2025) 4 SCC 1
Case Title
M/s Bihar Steel v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2284 of 2025
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Swarna Roy — for the petitioner
Mr. Additional Solicitor General — for the respondents
Link to Judgment
3f4e7540-9907-4d77-b1df-270f62939011.pdf
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
