M/S Aditya Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Aditya Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an assessment order dated 24.02.2023. The petitioner's counsel stated that an appeal against this order had been disposed of, while the relief sought in the writ petition included a direction to consider an appeal and set aside the assessment order. The Court noted that the petitioner had an admitted appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The assessment order was dated 24.02.2023, meaning an appeal should have been filed by 23.05.2023, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The Court observed that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the statutory remedy within the prescribed time.
Held
The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to permit the filing of an appeal beyond the period provided under the statute. The reasoning was based on the existence of an effective alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for appeals within three months and a further one month for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons. The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised where an adequate and effective remedy is available, especially when the assessee has not been diligent in availing it. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499, stating that extraordinary jurisdiction should only be invoked if a strong case is made out or if there are good grounds, such as a breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights, none of which were pleaded by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to permit the filing of an appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation, given the existence of an alternate statutory remedy. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction to consider their appeal and set aside the assessment order, implying a request for the appellate process to be reopened or considered despite potential delays. The specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the assessment or the reasons for delay are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the State of Bihar, did not explicitly present arguments on the petitioner's delay in filing the appeal. However, the Court's reasoning implicitly addresses the State's position by upholding the statutory time limits and the availability of alternative remedies. The judgment relies on the principle that the law favors diligent litigants and that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be used to circumvent statutory remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 21-02-2024 The writ petition is filed against the order of assessment produced as Annexure-1 dated 24.02.2023. The petitioner, admittedly, has an appellate remedy and it is not clear as to whether an appeal was filed and the same is pending or disposed of.
In paragraph no. 14, it is stated that the appeal has 2/4 been disposed of affirming the assessment order, while relief (B) claims for a direction to consider the appeal and set aside the assessment order. If an appeal is filed, necessarily it has to be considered, if the same is filed within the period of limitation, on merits. There can be no contention taken that the petitioner should be allowed to file an appeal, at this stage, since the period of limitation is long over.
Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Sevices Tax Act, 2017(“BGST Act” hereafter) 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. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 24.02.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 23.05.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application with one month thereafter. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 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 indolent.
We also notice the contours of the juri iction under 3/4 Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with appellable orders laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499. It has been held that if an assessee approaches the High Court without availing the alternate remedy, it should be ensured that the assessee has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke the extraordinary juri iction. While reiterating that 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 can exercise the power only if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or due procedure required for the decision has not been adopted. The High Court would also 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 juri iction 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.
4/4
In the above, circumstances, this Court cannot invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to permit filing of an appeal beyond the period provided under the statue.
We find absolutely, no reason to entertain the writ petition, and dismiss the same.
ranjan/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.02.2024 Transmission Date NA
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.