M/S Dilip Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dilip Kumar, a proprietary concern, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 08.02.2023. This order rejected their appeal on the grounds of delay. The original order being appealed was dated 18.11.2021, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. The appellate authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay upon showing satisfactory reasons. 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 01.03.2022, making the deadline 29.05.2022. The petitioner, however, filed their appeal on 30.01.2023, approximately eight months after the extended Supreme Court deadline expired.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed. The appellate order dated 08.02.2023 correctly rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay. The Court noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act prescribes a limitation period of three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one month for condonation of delay upon showing satisfactory reasons. Furthermore, the Court considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, setting a deadline of 29.05.2022 for appeals. The petitioner filed their appeal on 30.01.2023, significantly beyond this extended deadline. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially since alternative remedies were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that extraordinary writ jurisdiction will not be exercised where alternative remedies exist and the petitioner has failed to act diligently within the prescribed time limits, even considering pandemic-related extensions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay is sustainable in light of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. Petitioner's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of their appeal. The petitioner is before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, implying a challenge to the appellate order. Respondent's argument: The respondents, through the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, would likely argue that the appellate authority correctly applied Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions. They would contend that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limits, even considering the pandemic-related extensions, and thus the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay. The State would also likely argue that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate when alternative remedies have not been diligently pursued.