Md. Shahil vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that this jurisdiction is not meant to be employed when alternate remedies are available, and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing those remedies within the prescribed time limits. The Court noted that the petitioner had significantly delayed filing the appeal, exceeding the timelines set by both the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions concerning the extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The petitioner failed to file the appeal by the extended deadline of May 29, 2022, or even by the further extended deadline of June 28, 2022, considering the condonation provision. The appeal was ultimately filed on February 14, 2023, over seven months after the Supreme Court's extended deadline expired. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate order rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Shahil, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated March 6, 2023, which rejected his appeal on grounds of delay. The appeal was filed against an order dated February 7, 2022. The appellate order noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay upon satisfactory reasons. The petitioner had not availed the benefit of the Supreme Court's suo motu order in In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court directed that appeals could be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022, meaning the appeal should have been filed by May 29, 2022. Even considering the BGST Act's provision for condonation of delay within one month of the expiry of limitation, the appeal should have been filed by June 28, 2022. However, the petitioner filed the appeal on February 14, 2023, over seven months after the extended Supreme Court deadline.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay in filing the appeal, given the petitioner's failure to adhere to statutory and Supreme Court-directed timelines? The petitioner contended that the delay should be condoned, likely implying reliance on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic. The petitioner's argument, though not explicitly detailed, would center on seeking relief from the appellate order rejecting the appeal due to delay. The respondent (State) argued that the petitioner was not diligent in availing alternate remedies within the stipulated time. They relied on Section 107 of the BGST Act, which prescribes specific timelines for filing appeals and seeking condonation of delay, and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation.