Maa Sharda Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Sharda Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 14.12.2022. This appellate order rejected their appeal against an earlier order dated 17.11.2021 on the grounds of delay. The appellate authority considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows appeals within three months and condonation of delay for a further month. The authority also factored in the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court's directions meant appeals could be filed by 29.05.2022, or by 28.06.2022 if the longer period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act was considered. The petitioner filed their appeal on 02.12.2022, significantly beyond these periods.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The appellate order correctly noted that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the stipulated timelines. Section 107 of the BGST Act permits appeals within three months, with a further one-month window for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 provided an extended period for filing, with appeals generally expected by 29.05.2022, or by 28.06.2022 if the longer statutory period for condonation was considered. The petitioner's appeal, filed on 02.12.2022, was substantially delayed. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when alternative remedies exist and the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing them within the prescribed timeframes. Therefore, the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on grounds of delay was upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, considering the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner likely argued that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, possibly by invoking the benefit of the Supreme Court's directions on limitation extension and the provisions for condonation of delay under the BGST Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, even after considering the Supreme Court's directions and the statutory provisions for condonation of delay under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They likely emphasized the petitioner's failure to act diligently within the extended timelines.