Maa Sharda Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Sharda Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 15.12.2022. This order rejected their appeal against an assessment order and subsequent demand notice (Annexure-1). The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The appellate order 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 upon satisfactory reasons. The Appellate 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, effectively until 01.06.2022. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 02.12.2022, approximately six months after the extended Supreme Court deadline.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the alternate remedies available to them within the stipulated timeframes. The appellate order correctly noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides a period of three months for filing an appeal, with an additional month for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods, allowing appeals to be filed up to 01.06.2022. The petitioner filed their appeal on 02.12.2022, significantly beyond both the statutory and the extended Supreme Court deadlines. The Court found no reason to interfere when the petitioner had not demonstrated diligence in pursuing their statutory rights. The ratio is that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for diligent pursuit of statutory remedies, especially when appeals are rejected on grounds of delay due to the assessee's own laches.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with an appellate order that rejected an appeal solely on the grounds of delay, especially when alternate remedies were available but not diligently pursued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the appellate order was erroneous in rejecting the appeal on delay without considering the merits, and that the High Court's intervention is warranted. (The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the original assessment). Respondent's Contention: The State argues that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time limits, including the extended period granted by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction. The respondents rely on the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.