M/S Vikash Int Udyog vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vikash Int Udyog, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeal), Saran Division. This appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated 28.12.2022. The rejection was solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Siwan Circle. The appeal was filed on 04.09.2023, which was significantly beyond the prescribed time limits for filing an appeal and seeking condonation of delay under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held

The High Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the appellate order rejecting the appeal was based on the ground of delay. The assessment order was dated 28.12.2022. Under Section 107 of the BGST Act, an appeal could be filed within three months, i.e., by 27.03.2023, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay, expiring on 27.04.2023. The appeal was filed on 04.09.2023, approximately four months after the extended limitation period expired. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be invoked when alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing them within the stipulated time. The law favors the diligent, and the delay was 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 a writ petition when the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of inordinate delay, and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the statutory remedy. Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the original assessment order. The focus is on the delay in filing the appeal. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, likely contended that the appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal due to the significant delay, as the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They would have argued that the writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent pursuit of alternate remedies.