Best judgment assessment recovery was left intact, but the taxpayer's appellate remedy remained available under a later notification.

A writ challenge to recovery from a best judgment assessment under the Bihar GST framework was not entertained because the return and tax were filed beyond the statutory thirty-day period, and the Court treated the delay as fatal to Article 226 interference. The appellate remedy was, however, preserved: a later CBIC notification extending the time for filing appeals could be invoked if its conditions were satisfied, and the appeal was to be examined on merits. The appellate authority was directed to consider the matter expeditiously, with refund and interest consequences depending on the appeal's result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted against recovery arising from a best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 where the return and tax were filed after the statutory period. (ii) Whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue an appeal in terms of the later notification extending the time for filing appeals.

Issue (i): Whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted against recovery arising from a best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 where the return and tax were filed after the statutory period.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 62 required filing of the return and payment within thirty days from the assessment order, failing which the statutory consequence would follow. The payment in the case was made one day beyond the period computed by the Court, and the delay could not be ignored in the face of the express statutory requirement. Interference under Article 226 was therefore considered unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery was not entertained and the petitioner did not obtain writ relief on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue an appeal in terms of the later notification extending the time for filing appeals.

Analysis: The notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extended the time for filing appeals against specified orders and provided a special procedure for pending and delayed appeals. The Court treated the appellate remedy as available against a best judgment assessment under Section 62 and directed that, if the conditions in the notification were met, the appeal would be examined on merits. The Court also indicated the consequences regarding refund and interest depending on the result of the appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal in accordance with the notification, and the appellate authority was directed to consider it expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere with the assessment-driven recovery but preserved the petitioner's appellate remedy under the notification framework, with directions for expeditious consideration by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a strict time limit for curing a best judgment assessment, writ interference is not warranted for a marginal delay, but the appellate remedy may still be pursued if a later notification validly extends the time and prescribes conditions for appeal.

---