Jitendra Kumar Pathak vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Pathak, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated April 28, 2023, which rejected his appeal on grounds of delay. The original order being appealed against was dated November 18, 2021. The Appellate Authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. 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 until February 28, 2022, and allowed appeals to be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022. The petitioner's appeal was filed on April 13, 2023, which was approximately 289 days after the extended limitation period expired.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority correctly rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay. The Court noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides a limitation period for filing appeals and a further period for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. Even with the extended period, the appeal ought to have been filed by May 29, 2022, or at the latest by June 28, 2022, if the condonation provision was considered. The appeal was filed on April 13, 2023, significantly beyond these dates. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when alternate remedies exist and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The ratio is that High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 when statutory remedies are available and the petitioner has failed to act diligently within the prescribed time limits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner likely argued that the delay should have been condoned, potentially relying on the Supreme Court's directions for extension of limitation and possibly any specific reasons for the delay not explicitly detailed in the judgment. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the reasons for delay. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the State, would have argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act and also beyond the extended period granted by the Supreme Court, thus warranting rejection.