Validity of assessment order: challenge dismissed where statutory appellate remedy was not exhausted and limitation prevented remedy.

Validity of assessment orders reviewed on plea of ex parte issuance and violation of principles of natural justice; court found petitioner failed to avail statutory appellate remedy under the BGST regime and did not file appeal within the limitation periods preserved or extended by pandemic relief, including available condonation, and therefore could not invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to reopen computation of turnover or tax liability. The court concluded no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or abuse of process, and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to assessment orders for the years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, failure to claim input tax, appealability of assessment orders, availability of statutory remedies, invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution.

Challenge to Assessment Orders: The petitioner challenged assessment orders for the years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, claiming lack of proper service of notice and orders. The contention was that the petitioner was not issued a physical notice, although notices were uploaded on the portal, which is a valid mode of service as per Section 169 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's argument that electronic mode should not have been chosen during the Covid period was deemed unconvincing, given the prevalent digital practices at the time.

Failure to Claim Input Tax: Another contention raised was the non-accordance of input tax due to the petitioner's failure to make a claim in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Appealability of Assessment Orders: The assessment orders challenged were appealable under Section-107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. However, the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed timeframe, missing the opportunity to avail the statutory remedy.

Statutory Remedies and Article 226: The judgment highlighted the importance of availing statutory remedies before seeking recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's directives regarding limitation periods and the availability of condonation of delay were cited to emphasize the necessity of following the prescribed procedures for appeals.

Invocation of Article 226: The High Court reiterated the principles governing the invocation of Article 226, emphasizing that it is a discretionary remedy to be used in cases of breach of natural justice, jurisdictional errors, or fundamental rights violations. In this case, since the petitioner did not avail the appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act, the Court held that there was no valid ground for invoking Article 226 to challenge the assessment orders.

Dismissal of Writ Petition: Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, noting the petitioner's failure to avail statutory remedies, the absence of jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice, and the lack of valid contentions beyond the issue of notice service. The Court emphasized that when specific periods for delay condonation are provided, there can be no extension of such periods through Article 226 of the Constitution.

---