M/S Vinay Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vinay Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 20.02.2023, which rejected their appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The original assessment order was passed on 11.01.2021. The appeal was filed on 11.02.2023, significantly after the prescribed time limits. The appellate authority considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows an appeal within three months and a further one-month condonation period for delay. The authority also factored in the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, effectively allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022, meaning by 01.06.2022. The petitioner failed to avail this extended period.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that the petitioner had failed to be diligent in availing the alternate statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. The appellate order correctly considered Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribes time limits for filing appeals and seeking condonation of delay. Furthermore, the appellate authority correctly took into account the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The appeal was filed significantly beyond the period allowed even with the Supreme Court's extension. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate order, as writ jurisdiction is not meant to condone a lack of diligence in pursuing available remedies. The writ petition was dismissed.

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 diligently pursue an alternate statutory remedy within the prescribed time limits, including the extended period granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic? 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. The focus of the writ petition appears to be on challenging the appellate order that rejected the appeal on delay grounds. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, would likely contend that the appellate authority correctly applied the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions on limitation. They would argue that the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated time, even with the pandemic-related extensions, disentitles them from seeking relief under Article 226, as it is not a substitute for diligent pursuit of statutory remedies.