Saroj Devi vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Saroj Devi, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 15.12.2022, which rejected her appeal on grounds of delay. The original order of assessment was passed on 28.02.2020. The appeal was filed on 30.11.2022, significantly beyond the prescribed time limits. The appellate authority considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows filing an appeal within three months and condonation of delay for a further month. It also took into account the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. This meant an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022, a deadline the petitioner missed.
Held
The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of appeal, which she failed to pursue diligently within the stipulated time. The appellate authority had correctly considered the statutory period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the BGST Act and the extension granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The appeal was filed on 30.11.2022, which was 155 days after the expiry of the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court (which would have ended on 29.05.2022). The ratio decidendi is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing statutory remedies when the petitioner has not demonstrated diligence in pursuing those remedies within the prescribed time limits. The writ petition was dismissed.
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 failed to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal within the stipulated time, including the extended period granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel Mr. Alok Kumar, implicitly argued for the exercise of writ jurisdiction by filing the petition, suggesting a grievance that warranted High Court intervention despite the delay. No specific arguments regarding the delay condonation or the applicability of the Supreme Court's order were explicitly recorded. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by Dr. K.N. Singh (ASG) and Mr. Vikash Kumar (SC 11), argued that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the alternate remedy within the prescribed time. They relied on the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, highlighting that the appeal was filed substantially beyond the permissible period.
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 : 20-04-2023 The writ petition is filed against the appellate order dated 15.12.2022, Annexure-2 which rejected the appeal on the 2/3 ground of delay. The appeal was from Annexure-1 order of assessment passed on 28.02.2020. The appellate order specifically noticed Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) which 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. The Appellate Authority also took into account the saving of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation. Therein, due to the pandemic situation limitation was saved between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. It was also directed that an appeal could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.05.2022, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 30.11.2022, with a delay of 155 days from the date on which even the limitation period as stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, expired. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226, 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 3/3 the stipulated time. The writ petition hence would stand dismissed.
P.K.P./Anushka (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.04.2023 Transmission Date
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.