M/S Laxmi Barter PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Laxmi Barter Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 21.03.2023. This appellate order rejected their appeal on the grounds of delay. The original order being appealed was an assessment order dated 13.05.2022. The appeal was filed on 13.03.2023, approximately six months after the expiry of the extended limitation period. The appellate authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows filing an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation upon showing satisfactory reasons. The court also considered the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation due to the pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed. The appellate order dated 21.03.2023 correctly rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay. The assessment order was dated 13.05.2022. Under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal could be filed within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. Considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, and allowed filing within ninety days from 01.03.2022, an appeal could have been preferred on or before 12.08.2022, and filed with delay before 12.09.2022. However, the appeal was filed on 13.03.2023, approximately six months after the expiry of even the extended limitation period. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The ratio is that High Courts will not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to condone inordinate delays in filing appeals where statutory remedies are available and have not been pursued diligently.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay, considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic, and the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's contention, implicitly, is that the appeal should not have been rejected solely on the ground of delay, and that the benefits of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation should have been applied to their case. The petitioner likely argues that the delay was attributable to circumstances arising from the pandemic or that the appellate authority failed to properly consider the extended limitation period. The respondent's contention, as reflected in the appellate order and the High Court's reasoning, is that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible period, even after accounting for the Supreme Court's directions. The respondents would argue that the petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfactory reasons for the inordinate delay and did not avail the alternate remedy diligently within the stipulated time.