M/S Aadya Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aadya Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, South Circle, Patna, which cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner also challenged the appellate order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Taxation, Patna West Division, Patna. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of being barred by limitation, as it was filed after a delay of 34 months and 20 days. The respondents referred to a coordinate bench judgment in M/s Vishwanath Traders Vs. Union of India, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for delayed appeals when alternate remedies exist and the assessee was not diligent.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the GST registration cancellation or the delay in filing the appeal. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they did not wish to press the present petition. The Court granted the liberty sought by the petitioners to seek fresh registration under the provisions of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of this liberty. The ratio decidendi, in this context, is that when a petitioner withdraws a petition and seeks liberty to pursue an alternate course of action, the Court grants such liberty, effectively disposing of the pending proceedings without adjudicating the underlying issues. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain a writ petition challenging an order that dismissed an appeal on the grounds of being barred by limitation, especially when alternate remedies were available and not availed diligently, as per Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner did not explicitly argue their case on merits but sought liberty to seek fresh registration. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the cancellation or the delay in filing the appeal. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through learned Standing Counsel, relied on the judgment in M/s Vishwanath Traders Vs. Union of India (CWJC No. 82 of 2023), which was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No(s). 15594 of 2023. They contended that the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for delayed appeals when alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent. They specifically pointed to sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to support their argument that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition.