Rajeshwar Pathak vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeshwar Pathak, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated May 23, 2023, which rejected his appeal on grounds of delay. The original order being appealed against was dated February 13, 2021. The Appellate Authority considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows appeals within three months and condonation of delay for a further month. The Authority also took into account the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. The appeal was filed on May 8, 2023, significantly beyond the stipulated timelines, including those extended by the Supreme Court.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority was correct in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay. The Court noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act prescribes a limitation period for filing appeals and a further period for condonation of delay. It also considered the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which provided for an extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court directed that appeals could be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022, or by the statutory extended period if longer. Even with these extensions, the appeal ought to have been filed by May 29, 2022, or by June 28, 2022, if the one-month condonation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act was applicable. The petitioner filed the appeal on May 8, 2023, which was 314 days after the expiry of the extended limitation period. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when alternative remedies exist and the petitioner failed to diligently avail them within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority correctly rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner likely argued that the delay should have been condoned, possibly by relying on the Supreme Court's directions for extension of limitation and potentially arguing for a liberal interpretation of the delay condonation provisions. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments but implies a failure to avail the extended timelines. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, even after considering the extensions granted by the Supreme Court. They relied on Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's order, highlighting that the appeal was filed 314 days after the extended limitation period expired.