M/S Daisy Developers PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

CWJC/7402/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01033800202402 May 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Daisy Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated March 6, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Purnea Division. This appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated January 11, 2023, solely on the grounds of delay. The assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle. The petitioner filed their appeal before the appellate authority on February 21, 2024, approximately nine months after the expiry of the extended limitation period. The appellate order noted that the petitioner had not availed the Amnesty Scheme issued by the CBIC.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that such jurisdiction is not meant to be employed when alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the prescribed time. The Court noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month window for condonation of delay upon satisfactory reasons. The petitioner filed their appeal approximately nine months after the extended limitation period expired. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and the significant delay stood against the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has failed to diligently pursue alternate remedies within the stipulated time frame, specifically concerning the delay in filing an appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the original assessment order. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, through the Government Pleader, likely supported the appellate order's rejection of the appeal on grounds of delay, emphasizing the statutory time limits and the petitioner's lack of diligence. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments but implies their stance by upholding the appellate order.

Sections Cited

Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7402 of 2024 ====================================================== M/s Daisy Developers Pvt. Ltd., having it registered office at - Bharat Auto Service, Mirchai Bari, Ambedkar Chowk, Katihar, Bihar through its Director Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, aged about 48 Year S/o Basudeo Agarwal. Resident of Wireless Gali, Amla tola, P.s. - Katihar Sadar, District- Katihar, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at Room No. 46, North Block, P.O. and P.S. North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Chief Commissioner, CGST and CX, Office at - C.R Building, 1st Floor, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. 3. The State of Bihar Through Commissioner BGST, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle, Purnea, Bihar. 5. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle, Purnea, Bihar. 6. Additional Commissioner (Appeal) Purnea Division, Purnea. 7. Office of Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Katihar, District- Katihar. 8. State Bank of India having its Branch Office at - Katihar Branch, Mirchai Bari, Katihar through its Branch Manager. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anurag Saurav For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 02-05-2024 The writ petition is filed against the appellate order dated 06.03.2024, Annexure-P/11, which rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The appeal was from Annexure-P/7 order of assessment passed on 11.01.2023. 2/3 The appellate order specifically noticed Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity “BGST Act”) which permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. The appellate order further noticed the fact that the petitioner has not availed the Amnesty Scheme issued by the CBIC vide Notification No. 53/2023. 2. The order impugned in the appeal was dated 11.01.2023. An appeal could have been preferred on or before 10.04.2023 and also filed with delay before 10.05.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 21.02.2024, after about nine months from the date on which even the limitation period expired. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time.

The law favours the diligent and not the 3/3 indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.

The writ petition hence would stand dismissed.

sharun/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03.05.2024 Transmission Date

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.