M/S Sai All Solution vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sai All Solution, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated March 7, 2023. This order rejected their appeal against an order dated November 21, 2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner had filed their appeal on March 1, 2023, which was significantly beyond the prescribed time limits. 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. The authority also factored in the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, extending limitation periods due to the pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed. The Appellate Authority correctly noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act permits appeals within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation upon satisfactory reasons. The Court also acknowledged the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, and allowed appeals to be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022. This meant an appeal could have been filed by May 29, 2022. However, the petitioner filed their appeal only on March 1, 2023, a delay of 274 days even after the extended period expired. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as it is not meant for situations where alternative remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing them within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, despite the Supreme Court's directions regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner likely argued that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, considering the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation periods. They may have contended that the Appellate Authority did not properly consider the impact of the Supreme Court's directions on their filing timeline. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar, likely argued that the petitioner failed to file their appeal within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court and the subsequent statutory timelines. They would have emphasized that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 274 days from the expiry of the period stipulated even by the Supreme Court's order, and that the petitioner had not provided satisfactory reasons for such a significant delay.