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. This appellate order rejected their appeal against an assessment order dated 28.12.2022. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Siwan Circle. The appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeal), Saran Division. The appeal was filed on 04.09.2023, significantly after the expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal and seeking condonation of delay.

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 avail it diligently within the stipulated time. The appellate order itself correctly applied Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one-month period for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. The appeal was filed on 04.09.2023, which was substantially beyond the permissible period. The Court reiterated the principle that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. 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 challenging an appellate order that rejected an appeal solely on the ground of delay, when the petitioner failed to avail the alternate remedy within the stipulated time. This issue turns on the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the availability of alternate remedies. Contentions: Petitioner: No arguments were recorded for the petitioner as none appeared. Revenue/State: The respondents, represented by Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11, likely argued that the High Court should not interfere in a matter where the petitioner was indolent and failed to pursue their statutory remedy diligently within the prescribed time limits, as per Section 107 of the BGST Act.