M/S Madan Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that when a specific period for delay condonation is provided under a statute, such as Section 107 of the BGST Act, the Appellate Authority or the High Court cannot extend this period further. The petitioner's failure to avail the appellate remedy within the stipulated time, including the permissible period for condonation of delay, meant they could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the statutory remedy, with its defined timelines, must be adhered to. Therefore, the writ petition, having been filed after the statutory period expired and without valid condonation of delay, was not maintainable. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment order or the reasons for the delay.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Madan Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 28.06.2023. This appellate order had rejected their appeal on the grounds of delay. The original appeal was against an assessment order passed on 29.06.2022. The appellate authority specifically referred to Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows filing an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation upon showing satisfactory reasons. The petitioner failed to avail the appellate remedy within the prescribed time limits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the time prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act, including the period for condonation of delay. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that their writ petition should be considered due to the circumstances leading to the delay, though specific arguments regarding the reasons for delay or the merits of the original appeal are not recorded. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court against the appellate order. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's position, as reflected in the Court's reasoning, is that the statutory period for appeal and delay condonation under Section 107 of the BGST Act is absolute, and the High Court cannot extend this period under Article 226.