M/S Iel Avian (Jv) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s IEL AVIAN (JV), filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 07.03.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Patna West Division. This appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated 03.01.2022, solely on the grounds of delay. The appeal was filed on 14.02.2023, significantly beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the extended period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 due to the pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the appellate order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay was justified. The Court noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act allows for an appeal within three months and a further one-month period for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. Crucially, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which saved limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, and directed that appeals could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. This meant an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022. However, the petitioner filed the appeal on 14.02.2023, which was 286 days 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 were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The ratio is that High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 when statutory remedies are available and the petitioner has failed to comply with the prescribed timelines, even considering pandemic-related extensions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, considering the condonation period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, concerning the saving of limitation due to the pandemic? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that the appellate authority should have considered the Supreme Court's directions for extension of limitation when evaluating the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner sought to avail the benefit of the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the respondents, contended that the appeal was filed excessively late, even beyond the extended limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the appellate authority was justified in rejecting it on grounds of delay. They did not explicitly argue any specific provision but relied on the fact that the petitioner failed to avail the stipulated time.