M/S. Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner State Tax (Appeals). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated 09.10.2021. The appeal was rejected solely on the ground of delay. The appellate authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month condonation period for satisfactory reasons. The authority also considered the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. Despite this, the petitioner filed the appeal on 26.01.2023, approximately seven months and twenty-five days after the extended limitation period expired.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, even after considering the extension granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The Supreme Court's order allowed for appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning the deadline was 29.05.2022. The petitioner filed their appeal on 26.01.2023, well after this extended deadline. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as it is not meant to be a substitute for availing alternate remedies diligently within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 when a party has been negligent in pursuing statutory remedies within prescribed time limits, especially when the delay is substantial and not adequately justified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the 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, possibly due to reasons related to the pandemic or other justifiable causes, and that the appellate authority failed to consider these adequately. They may have relied on the spirit of the Supreme Court's order to extend limitation. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, likely contended that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible time limits, even after accounting for the Supreme Court's extension, and that the appellate authority correctly applied the statutory provisions and the Supreme Court's directions.