M/S Koshi Traders vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Koshi Traders, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an assessment order dated 22.03.2021. The appeal against this order was filed on 19.01.2023, significantly beyond the prescribed limitation periods. The petitioner had not availed the statutory appellate remedy provided under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act. The court noted the Supreme Court's directions regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic, which allowed for appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, or by 29.05.2022. Even considering the condonation of delay provision under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within one month of the expiry of limitation, the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022. The petitioner's appeal was filed over six months after this extended period.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory remedies available under the BGST Act, specifically the appeal under Section 107, within the stipulated timeframes. The Supreme Court's directions for limitation extension due to the pandemic, and the one-month period for delay condonation under Section 107(4), were not availed by the petitioner. The Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be invoked when an adequate and effective alternative remedy exists, unless there are grounds like breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights, none of which were established by the petitioner. The petitioner's argument regarding non-service of notice and lack of digital signature was considered, with the court noting that the issue of digital signatures had been dealt with in another case. The gross delay in filing the appeal was a significant factor against the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found no valid grounds to entertain the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act within the prescribed time limits, including the period extended by the Supreme Court's suo motu order and the condonation provision under Section 107(4), can invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were not properly served as no physical copy was provided, and that the orders lacked a digital signature as required by Rule 26(3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Respondent's contention: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's reasoning implies that the respondents would rely on the statutory provisions regarding limitation and the availability of alternative remedies.