Om Shiv Construction A Proprietorship Firm vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Om Shiv Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated March 10, 2023, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay. The original order being appealed was dated October 29, 2021. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) allows for appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay upon showing satisfactory reasons. The Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, saving time between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, and allowing appeals within ninety days from March 1, 2022. Consequently, an appeal could have been filed by May 29, 2022. The petitioner did not avail this provision. Even considering the condonation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, the appeal should have been filed by June 28, 2022. However, the appeal was filed on February 24, 2023, over 209 days after the extended limitation period expired.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated timeframes, even after considering the extensions granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic and the provisions for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. The Court noted that the appeal was filed significantly late, approximately 209 days after the extended limitation period expired. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when alternate remedies were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing them within the prescribed time. The ratio decidendi is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to bypass statutory remedies or to condone gross negligence in pursuing them. The appellate order rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay was upheld implicitly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner likely argued that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, relying on the Supreme Court's Suo Motu order extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They would have contended that the period between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, should be excluded, and the subsequent ninety-day period from March 1, 2022, should be considered for filing the appeal. They might have also argued for condonation under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue likely argued that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the extended timelines prescribed by the Supreme Court and the BGST Act, even with the benefit of condonation. They would have emphasized the significant delay of over 209 days beyond the permissible period, arguing that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing their alternate remedy.