Pawan Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Yadav, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 13.12.2022. This order rejected his appeal against a notice dated 12.04.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21, solely on the grounds of delay. 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 period 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, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. This meant the appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022. However, the petitioner filed the appeal on 09.12.2022, approximately seven months after the extended deadline.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. The reasoning was that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be exercised where alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not demonstrated diligence in pursuing those remedies within the prescribed time limits. The appellate authority had correctly applied Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible time, even considering the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court will not interfere under Article 226 when a party has failed to pursue statutory remedies diligently within the time prescribed, especially when the delay is substantial and not adequately explained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has failed to avail alternate remedies within the stipulated time? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction or the merits of the delay. The petitioner's case appears to be based on challenging the appellate order that rejected the appeal on delay grounds. Revenue/State's Argument: The State contended that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the alternate remedies available and that the writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for the normal appellate process when statutory timelines are not adhered to. The appellate authority correctly applied Section 107 of the BGST Act and the directions from the Supreme Court regarding the extension of limitation.