M/S Koshi Traders vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition, as the petitioner had not been diligent in availing alternate remedies within the stipulated time, and the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay. The Court acknowledged the recommendation of the 52nd GST Council regarding an Amnesty Scheme for filing appeals, which would allow taxpayers to file appeals up to 31st January 2024, subject to conditions, for cases rejected solely on time-bar grounds. The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek restoration of their appeal or file a fresh appeal if this recommendation is brought into effect through a notification, circular, or law amendment. Until such time, the writ petition would stand dismissed. The dismissal was clarified not to impede the petitioner's future actions upon the implementation of the GST Council's recommendation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Koshi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 21.02.2023, which rejected their appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The original assessment order was passed on 01.02.2020. The appellate authority relied on Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month condonation period for delay. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 19.01.2023, significantly after the prescribed timelines, even considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) and the subsequent ninety-day period from 01.03.2022. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing alternate remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has not been diligent in availing alternate remedies within the stipulated time, and the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay under Section 107 of the BGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner brought to the court's attention a recommendation made by the 52nd GST Council meeting on 07.10.2023, proposing an Amnesty Scheme for filing appeals against demand orders where appeals could not be filed within the allowable time. This scheme, to be implemented through Section 148 of the CGST Act, 2017, would allow filing of appeals up to 31st January 2024, subject to pre-deposit conditions, for cases where appeals were rejected solely on time-bar grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the petitioner's delay or the applicability of the GST Council's recommendation. The court's decision is based on the petitioner's lack of diligence and the availability of alternate remedies.