M/S. Capital Offset vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Capital Offset Naya Tola, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an appellate order dated 15.03.2023. This appellate order had rejected their appeal on the grounds of delay. The original appeal was filed against an assessment order dated 21.10.2022. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 11.03.2023, which was significantly beyond the prescribed limitation period. The State of Bihar, through its various tax authorities, are the respondents. The petitioner sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held

The High Court held that it should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in this case. The Court reasoned that the writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing alternate remedies, especially when the petitioner has not demonstrated diligence in pursuing those remedies within the stipulated timeframes. The Court emphasized that the statute provides a specific period for filing an appeal, including a further period for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. It is a well-established principle that neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can extend this statutory time limit. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to such statutory appeals. Therefore, the writ petition, which sought to overcome the delay in filing the appeal, was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, should interfere with an appellate order that rejected an appeal solely on the grounds of delay, when the appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limits and the additional period for condonation of delay. The petitioner contended that the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to grant relief, implying that the delay was justifiable or that the appellate authority erred in not considering the merits. The petitioner sought to invoke the extraordinary powers of the High Court. The respondents, the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not been diligent in availing alternate remedies within the stipulated time. They further argued that statutory provisions prescribing time limits for appeals, including condonation of delay, cannot be extended by the appellate authority or the High Court, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable in such cases.