M/S Saraswati Reliable Engineering vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saraswati Reliable Engineering, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 24.11.2022. This order rejected their appeal against an earlier order dated 03.12.2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The appeal was filed on 02.11.2022, significantly after the prescribed timelines. The appellate authority considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows appeals within three months and condonation of delay for a further month with satisfactory reasons. It also factored in the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic, which saved limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, and allowed filing within ninety days from 01.03.2022, or a longer period if provided by statute.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition would stand dismissed. The reasoning was that the appellate order correctly noted Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows appeals within three months and condonation of delay for a further month. The appellate authority also correctly considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. These directions allowed for appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, or a longer period if provided by statute. Even with these extensions, the appeal ought to have been filed by 29.05.2022, or by 28.06.2022 if the one-month condonation period under Section 107(4) was considered. However, the appeal was filed on 02.11.2022, which was 127 days after the expiry of the extended limitation period. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised where alternate remedies are available and the petitioner has failed to act diligently within the prescribed or extended timelines.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the grounds 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 due to the pandemic? The petitioner contended that the appellate order was erroneous as it failed to properly consider the benefit of the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. These directions provided for an extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the petitioner likely argued that their appeal was filed within the extended timeline or that the appellate authority should have exercised more leniency in condoning the delay. The petitioner's argument implicitly relies on the principle that statutory timelines can be relaxed in exceptional circumstances, particularly when mandated by the apex court. The respondent (Revenue) argued that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, even after considering the Supreme Court's directions. They emphasized that the BGST Act, under Section 107(4), provides a specific window for condonation of delay, which was also not availed within the stipulated time. The respondent likely highlighted the petitioner's lack of diligence in filing the appeal within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court and the statutory provisions.