M/S Aditya Enterprice vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aditya Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, South Circle, Patna. The petitioner did not file an appeal against this order. The Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) provides for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The Court noted the Supreme Court's direction in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Even considering this extension, the petitioner could have filed an appeal by 29.05.2022, or by 28.06.2022 if the one-month delay condonation provision under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act was applied.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed time. The Court noted that the BGST Act allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay. Even considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic, the petitioner had ample time to file an appeal. The Court reiterated the principle that when a specific statutory remedy is available, and the assessee has not been diligent in availing it within the stipulated time, the High Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The law favors the diligent, and the delay on the part of the petitioner was a significant factor. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed time, can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner. However, the filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the order and a request for the High Court's intervention. Respondent's Argument: The respondents, through the Standing Counsel, likely argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which was not availed within the stipulated period. They would have contended that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies are available and have not been pursued diligently.