B.R. Auto Shine vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, B.R. Auto Shine, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 27.01.2023, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay. The original order of assessment was passed on 01.02.2021. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 12.01.2023, significantly beyond the prescribed time limits. The Court considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning by 29.05.2022. The petitioner failed to avail this extended period.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. The Court noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act prescribes a time limit for filing appeals, with provisions for condonation of delay. Crucially, the Court considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, effectively until 29.05.2022. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 12.01.2023, which was significantly after the expiry of both the statutory and the extended limitation periods. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since the petitioner had not been diligent in availing alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction will not be exercised where statutory remedies are available and have not been pursued diligently within the prescribed time limits, even considering pandemic-related extensions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued for condonation of delay, as they filed an appeal which was rejected on this ground. They likely relied on the Supreme Court's directions for extension of limitation due to the pandemic to justify their delayed filing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the appellate authority, argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, and even beyond the extended period granted by the Supreme Court, thus warranting rejection.