Amit Kumar Ray vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Ray, through his proprietor M/s Amit Kumar Ray, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated January 7, 2023. This order rejected his appeal, which was filed against an order dated December 1, 2021, pertaining to the period of April 2020 to March 2021. The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority on December 22, 2022, which was approximately seven months after the expiry of the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.

Held

The Court held that the appellate order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay was sustainable. The Court noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal to be filed within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay upon showing satisfactory reasons. The Court also took into account the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which provided a saving of limitation from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, and allowed appeals to be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022. Consequently, an appeal could have been filed by May 29, 2022. However, the petitioner filed the appeal only on December 22, 2022, which was significantly beyond the extended limitation period. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially since an alternate remedy was available and the petitioner had not demonstrated diligence in availing it within the prescribed time. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated January 7, 2023, rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, is sustainable in law, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic? The petitioner contended that the appellate order was erroneous as it failed to consider the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The revenue, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the alternate remedy of appeal within the stipulated time, including the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. They further submitted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked when an alternate remedy is available and has not been pursued diligently.