M/S Koshi Traders vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Koshi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 21.02.2023, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay. The original appeal was filed against an order dated 19.03.2021. 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 petitioner failed to avail the benefit of the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, which provided relief due to the pandemic. This order extended limitation periods, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning by 29.05.2022. Even considering the one-month condonation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022. However, the appeal was filed on 19.01.2023, approximately 205 days after the extended limitation period expired.

Held

The High Court held that it should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. The Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate order, which had rejected the petitioner's appeal due to significant delay. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's failure to be diligent in availing the alternate statutory remedies provided under the BGST Act within the stipulated timeframes. The Court noted that the petitioner had not availed the benefit of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation orders and had filed the appeal substantially beyond the permissible period, even after considering the condonation provisions. The principle established is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent pursuit of available alternate remedies, especially when the petitioner has been remiss in adhering to statutory timelines. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition challenging an appellate order that rejected an appeal solely on the grounds of delay, when the petitioner failed to diligently pursue alternate statutory remedies within the prescribed time limits? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly sought relief from the High Court, suggesting that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, likely by considering the pandemic-related extensions. They relied on the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, for the proposition that limitation periods were extended. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the State of Bihar, argued that the appellate order correctly applied the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation. They contended that the petitioner was not diligent in filing their appeal within the stipulated or extended timeframes, and therefore, the High Court should not interfere under Article 226.