Sheo Shankar Trading Company vs. Bihar State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Sheo Shankar Trading Company, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Shahabad Patna West, Bihar. This order rejected the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner did not file an appeal against the Joint Commissioner's order. The Court noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The Court also considered 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 allowed appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Therefore, an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that an alternate statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had failed to avail this remedy within the stipulated time, even after considering the benefit of extended limitation periods granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be employed where alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing them within the prescribed timelines. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of non-availability of alternate remedy and lack of diligence by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternate remedy of appeal was available but not availed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, considering the pandemic-related extensions granted by the Supreme Court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the order rejecting their ITC claim. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the invocation of writ jurisdiction or the availability of alternate remedies. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through the State's counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition should be dismissed because the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time, even with the benefit of extended limitation periods due to the pandemic.