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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Shanidev Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 14.05.2024. This appellate order had rejected their appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The original order that the petitioner sought to appeal 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 window for condonation of delay upon showing satisfactory reasons. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 02.05.2024, which was significantly beyond the prescribed time limits for both filing an appeal and filing a delayed appeal.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition. The primary reason for this decision was the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within the statutory time limits prescribed by Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellate order correctly noted that the original order was dated 27.10.2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by 24.01.2024, and a delayed appeal with condonation could have been filed by 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed the appeal only on 02.05.2024, long after the extended deadline expired. The Court reasoned that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing alternate remedies diligently, and the law favors diligent litigants over indolent ones. The delay in filing the appeal was deemed a significant impediment to granting relief.

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, especially when an alternate remedy was available but not pursued diligently. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the High Court should intervene due to the delay in filing the appeal. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the reasons for the delay or why the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction should be invoked. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, represented by Standing Counsel 11, likely supported the appellate order's decision to reject the appeal on grounds of delay, emphasizing the statutory time limits and the petitioner's lack of diligence. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondents' arguments but implies their stance by upholding the appellate order.