M/S Ram Chchabila Rai vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ram Chchabila Rai, filed a writ petition challenging appellate orders dated 26.10.2022, which rejected their appeals due to delay. These appeals were against orders dated 06.03.2020, 12.02.2021, and 26.02.2021, pertaining to assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, respectively. Additionally, an appeal was filed against an order dated 22.07.2021 for cancellation of registration. The appeals were filed on 21.09.2022, significantly after the prescribed limitation periods, even considering extensions granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the appeals filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) were indeed delayed. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for appeals within three months, with a further one-month window for condonation of delay upon satisfactory reasons. The Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, extended the limitation period, stating that appeals could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. This meant an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022. However, the petitioner filed their appeal only on 21.09.2022, which was approximately four months after the extended deadline. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly as alternative remedies were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing them within the stipulated time. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeals filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) were 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 implicitly argued that their appeals should have been considered on merits, suggesting that the delay was either justifiable or that the appellate authority should have condoned it. However, the judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of their case. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through the appellate orders, rejected the appeals on the ground of delay, adhering to the statutory time limits and the Supreme Court's directives on limitation. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents beyond the basis for the appellate rejection.