M/S Maa Kamakhya Construction vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Kamakhya Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated October 19, 2022, which rejected their appeal due to delay. The original assessment order was passed on December 28, 2021. The appellate authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The 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 meant appeals could be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022, making the deadline May 29, 2022. The petitioner's appeal was filed on September 8, 2022, significantly after this extended deadline.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that the writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for alternate remedies, especially when the petitioner has not been diligent in availing such remedies within the stipulated time. The appellate order correctly noted that the appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for appeals within three months and a further one month for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. Furthermore, the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which allowed appeals to be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022 (i.e., by May 29, 2022), was also not availed by the petitioner. The appeal was filed on September 8, 2022, long after these deadlines expired. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere. The operative direction was that the writ petition would stand dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain an appeal that was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and also beyond the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner likely argued for condonation of delay, possibly citing reasons related to the pandemic or other extenuating circumstances that prevented timely filing, and sought the High Court's intervention due to the perceived injustice of the rejection on technical grounds. Revenue's contention: The revenue likely argued that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed and extended limitation periods, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. They would emphasize the petitioner's lack of diligence in availing the available remedies within the stipulated timeframes.