M/S Vishwanath Traders vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vishwanath Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 17.10.2022. This appellate order had rejected their appeal on the grounds of delay. The original order being appealed against was an assessment order dated 12.03.2022. The appellate authority considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows appeals within three months and a further one-month period for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. The authority 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. The appeal was filed on 08.08.2022, which was approximately two months and nineteen days after the extended limitation period expired.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame, as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the appeal was filed on 08.08.2022, which was substantially delayed, even after considering the extension granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which provided a window for filing until 29.05.2022. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be invoked when alternative remedies are available and the assessee has not demonstrated diligence in pursuing those remedies within the prescribed time. The Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal on grounds of delay, as the petitioner had not availed the available remedies diligently.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, should entertain a writ petition when the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of delay, and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing alternative remedies within the stipulated time? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the original assessment order. The focus of the judgment is on the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed time limits. Respondent's Argument: The respondents, through the appellate order, argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, even considering the condonation period and the extension granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. They contended that the appeal was filed on 08.08.2022, significantly after the permissible filing date.