Md. Irshad Ansari @ Mohammad Irshad Ansari vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Irshad Ansari, proprietor of Ajanta Battery, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Appellate Authority. The impugned assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna, on 09-02-2021. The petitioner received information about this order on 10-11-2022. The appeal was filed on 03-12-2022. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, noting that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows filing an appeal within three months and a further one month for delay condonation. The Appellate 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. This extension allowed filing within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022. The petitioner filed the appeal approximately six months after this extended deadline.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's appeal was not filed within the prescribed limitation period. The Appellate Authority correctly applied Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one month for delay condonation. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority correctly considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. This extension permitted filing within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning the appeal should have been filed by 29.05.2022. The petitioner filed the appeal on 03.12.2022, which was approximately six months after the expiry of the extended limitation period. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it is not meant to be used when alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period, 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 extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner received information about the assessment order on 10-11-2022 and filed the appeal on 03-12-2022. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the petitioner regarding the interpretation of the limitation period or the applicability of the Supreme Court's order to their case, beyond stating the dates of receipt of information and filing. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through the State's counsel, argued that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible time limits. They highlighted that Section 107 of the BGST Act provides a three-month period for appeal with a further one-month window for condonation of delay. They also pointed out that even with the Supreme Court's extension of limitation (saving period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and allowing filing within 90 days from 01.03.2022), the appeal should have been filed by 29.05.2022. The appeal was filed on 03.12.2022, approximately six months after the expiry of this extended period.