M/S S.K. Steel Bahadurpur Samastipur vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.K. Steel, challenged two orders, Annexure-1 dated 10.01.2022 and Annexure-2 dated 13.09.2022, before the Patna High Court. The challenge stemmed from an appeal filed before the appellate authority which was dismissed due to gross delay. The petitioner had filed the appeal with a delay of 230 days. The Court noted that Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act provides a specific limitation period for filing appeals, including a further period for condonation of delay. The petitioner sought to pursue the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal despite the significant delay.

Held

The Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period specifically provided in the statute. The Court referred to Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period of three months and a further one month for condonation of delay by the Tribunal. In the present case, the appeal was filed with a delay of 230 days, which far exceeded the statutory condonable period. Therefore, the Court found no reason to allow the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal after its constitution. The Court dismissed the matter, upholding the statutory limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone a delay in filing an appeal that exceeds the period prescribed by Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to pursue their appeal remedy before the Tribunal, implying a request for condonation of the delay. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar through the Commissioner of State Taxes and other authorities, implicitly argued for the adherence to the statutory limitation period as provided in Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, given that the appeal was dismissed for gross delay.