Manoj Kumar Gupta vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Mamta Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 05.07.2024. This appellate order rejected his appeal against an order dated 30.11.2023. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. 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 delay condonation upon showing satisfactory reasons. The order impugned was dated 30.11.2023. Therefore, the appeal could have been filed by 28.02.2024, and a delayed appeal with condonation could have been filed by 30.03.2024. However, the appeal was filed on 04.05.2024, which was approximately one month after the extended limitation period expired.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available in the form of an appeal, but failed to diligently avail it within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The appellate order correctly rejected the appeal due to the significant delay in filing, which extended beyond the permissible period even with condonation. The Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate authority's decision, as the petitioner's lack of diligence was the sole ground for dismissal. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition against an appellate order that rejected an appeal solely on the grounds of delay, when the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed statutory periods. Petitioner's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel. However, the filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the appellate order and a request for relief from the High Court. Respondent's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, likely argued that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing his alternate remedy and that the High Court should not interfere with the appellate order which correctly applied the statutory time limits. The judgment implicitly acknowledges the respondents' position by referencing the law favoring diligent individuals.