Shankar Kumar Tiwari vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Shankar Kumar Tiwari, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Magadh Division, Gaya. This appellate order had rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay. The original assessment order was passed on 17.11.2021. The appeal was filed on 22.12.2022, 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, with a further one-month condonation period for delay. It also took into account the Supreme Court's order 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. This meant an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022, a deadline the petitioner missed.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be employed when alternative remedies are available and the assessee has failed to diligently pursue those remedies within the stipulated time. The petitioner had missed the statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, as well as the extended period granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic. The appeal was filed approximately six months and twenty-one days after the expiry of the extended limitation period. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal on grounds of delay. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court should not entertain writ petitions challenging orders that reject appeals solely on the ground of delay, especially when the delay is substantial and the petitioner has not demonstrated diligence in availing statutory remedies. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain an appeal that was filed significantly beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the extended period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the appeal was delayed and sought condonation. (Specific arguments on the reasons for delay or reliance on any specific precedent for condonation are not explicitly recorded in the judgment). Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar through its Secretary-cum-Commissioner of State Tax and other authorities, argued that the appeal was filed with an inordinate delay, exceeding six months and twenty-one days from the expiry of the extended limitation period. They relied on the appellate order which correctly applied the statutory provisions and the Supreme Court's directions.