Mustafa Ansari vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Mustafa Ansari, challenges a demand order dated 27.11.2021, issued pursuant to a notice dated 27.10.2021. The petitioner did not reply to the notice and did not file an appeal against the demand order. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which allows for filing within three months, extendable by one month with a satisfactory explanation for delay. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, or a longer period if provided by statute. This extended period would have allowed an appeal by 30.05.2022 or 30.06.2022. The petitioner filed the present writ petition instead of availing the appellate remedy.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which was not availed of due to the petitioner's own default. The Court noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal, even considering the extensions granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, had expired long before the filing of the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to bypass an alternative efficacious remedy that was available but not pursued. The attempt by the petitioner to bypass the appellate remedy was not countenanced. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed in limine. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act was available to the petitioner and was not availed of due to the petitioner's own default? Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner implicitly argues for the maintainability of the writ petition by filing it, suggesting that the demand order and the failure to avail the appellate remedy should be overlooked. The petitioner's failure to reply to the notice and file an appeal is attributed to their own default. Revenue/State: The respondents, through the Court's observations, contend that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which was not availed of. They rely on the principle that extraordinary remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked when an alternative efficacious remedy exists, as delineated in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499. They also highlight the petitioner's failure to avail the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court.