M/S Shree Sanidev Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Sanidev Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Gaya. This appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay. The original order being appealed was passed on 27.10.2023. The appellate authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay upon satisfactory reasons. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 06.05.2024, which was significantly beyond the prescribed time limits for both the initial appeal and a delayed appeal.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be employed when alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing those remedies within the stipulated time. The Court observed that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one-month period for condonation of delay. Since the appeal was filed on 06.05.2024, after the expiry of the limitation period for a delayed appeal (which would have been around 23.02.2024), the delay was substantial and against the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain an appeal that was filed beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including the extended period for condonation of delay. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, implying a grievance against the appellate order rejecting their appeal due to delay. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, would implicitly argue that the appellate order was justified as the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period, and the High Court should not interfere in such cases, especially when alternate remedies exist and the petitioner was not diligent.