Ajay Kumar Sahu vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Sahu, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated January 9, 2023, which rejected his appeal on grounds of delay. The appeal was filed against an order dated February 15, 2022. The appellate authority 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 delay condonation. The authority also considered the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022. Appeals could be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022, meaning by May 29, 2022. The petitioner did not avail this. Even considering the one-month condonation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, the appeal should have been filed by June 28, 2022. The appeal was filed on January 9, 2023, 195 days after the extended Supreme Court deadline.

Held

The Court held that the principle laid down in Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd. was not applicable to the present case. The Supreme Court's decision in that case pertained to the interplay between the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where a party was statutorily prevented from initiating proceedings. In contrast, the current case involved the COVID-19 pandemic, for which the Supreme Court had explicitly provided a saving of limitation. Despite this saving, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the further time granted by the Supreme Court after the saved period expired. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when alternate remedies were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing them within the stipulated time. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, filed significantly beyond the prescribed limitation periods under Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, should have been entertained by the Appellate Authority? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd. This case, according to the petitioner, supported the exclusion of periods where a party is statutorily disabled from initiating proceedings, suggesting that such periods should be considered for condoning delay. The petitioner contended that this principle should apply to their situation. The respondents, represented by the State, argued that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the extended timelines provided by the Supreme Court, even after accounting for the saved period and the statutory condonation provision under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. They contended that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the available remedies.