M/S Chunnu Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chunnu Yadav, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.02.2021. The petitioner's appeal against this order was filed on 09.12.2022, which was significantly delayed. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on grounds of delay, citing Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act). The petitioner contended that the assessment order was ex parte due to their accountant's unfamiliarity with GST procedures and claimed an excess tax payment liable for refund. The appellate order noted the appeal was filed approximately twenty months after the assessment order and that the petitioner failed to provide a certified copy of the assessment order despite opportunities.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable due to gross delay. The Court noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act prescribes a period of three months for filing an appeal, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay upon satisfactory reasons. The Court also considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, but found that even with these extensions, the appeal ought to have been filed by 29.05.2022 or, at the latest, by 28.06.2022, considering Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. The petitioner filed the appeal on 09.12.2022, significantly beyond these dates. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's reliance on the M/s G. Power Solution judgment, as the petitioner did not raise a contention of no notice being issued, and the assessment officer was justified in proceeding ex parte if the assessee did not cooperate. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the unconstituted Tribunal, as the first appellate authority had already dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay. The Court reiterated that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and should not be invoked when alternate remedies are available and have not been diligently pursued. The Court found no breach of principles of natural justice or procedural impropriety in the appellate authority's decision. The ratio is that the law favors the diligent, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction will not be exercised to condone gross delays in availing statutory remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 06.02.2021 was maintainable before the appellate authority, considering the delay and the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was ex parte due to procedural unfamiliarity and that there was an excess tax paid, warranting a refund. They also relied on a co-ordinate bench's judgment in M/s G. Power Solution v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.15607 of 2022) concerning ex parte assessment orders violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also asserted a right to appeal before the Tribunal, which has not yet been constituted. The respondent contended that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 107 of the BGST Act, including the condonable period. They argued that the petitioner failed to diligently pursue the alternate remedy and did not provide the necessary documents despite opportunities. The respondents also highlighted that the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation extension due to the pandemic were not availed by the petitioner.