The Patna High Court has held that when there is a specific period for delay condonation provided, there cannot be any extension of the said period by the Appellate Authority or by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, not availed the statutory remedy i.e. filing of appeal, directly approached the High Court against assessment order determining the liability of tax, interest and penalty. The limitation period for filing the appeal u/s 107 had also been expired. The writ was dismissed.

Relied on SC’s judgement Gujrat Ambuja Cement Limited – 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 would interfere if it comes to a conclusion that there is infringement of fundamental rights or where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders and proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of an Act is challenged. There is no such plea made by the petitioner in the present case against the impugned order.

Having not availed the statutory remedies available, the petitioner cannot seek to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an assessment order especially with respect to the computation of the turn over and the determination of the taxable turnover and the tax payable, as arrived at by the Assessing Officer.

“We find that there is no jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or abuse of process of law averred or argued by the petitioner in the above writ petition. There is no ground stated in the writ petition which would enable invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226; as has been delineated in Gujarat Ambuja (supra). The petitioner only makes a bland assertion of violation of fundamental and legal rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India without any substantiation,” the court said.

Case Title: M/s NARAYANI INDUSTRY Vs 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR