M/S. Pushpa Devi vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pushpa Devi, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated April 6, 2023, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay. The appeal was originally filed against an order dated January 23, 2021. 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. This extension meant appeals could be 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 their appeal on March 28, 2023, 273 days after the extended limitation expired.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority correctly rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's failure to diligently avail the alternate remedies within the stipulated timeframes. The Appellate Authority had correctly applied Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows appeals within three months and a further one-month 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 these extensions, the appeal was filed substantially late. The ratio decidendi is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent prosecution of alternate remedies within statutory timelines. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority correctly rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds 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 extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that their appeal should have been considered on merits, suggesting that the delay was either excusable or that the appellate authority should have condoned it. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the petitioner regarding the reasons for the delay or any specific legal contention to counter the appellate authority's findings. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through the appellate order, contended that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible time limits prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, even after accounting for the extension granted by the Supreme Court. They relied on the statutory timelines and the Supreme Court's directions to justify the rejection.