Case Law Details
Nokia India Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court deliberated on the case of Vishwanath Traders, represented by its proprietor Ajay Kumar, against the Union of India. The crux of the matter was an appellate order dated 17.10.2022, which rejected the appeal due to a significant delay. The original order of assessment (Annexure-1) was passed on 12.03.2022. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment.
The heart of the issue lay in Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows for an appeal to be filed within three months and permits an application for delay condonation with valid reasons within an additional one-month period. It is crucial to note that the Appellate Authority considered the provisions of this section.
Furthermore, the judgment took into account the exceptional circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, had granted relief by extending the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed that appeals could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. This effectively meant that an appeal could have been filed until 29.05.2022, adhering to the extended limitation period. However, the petitioner, Ajay Kumar, filed the appeal only on 08.08.2022, which amounted to a delay of two months and nineteen days beyond the extended deadline.
The High Court, in its wisdom, held that there was no justification to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This decision was especially significant because alternate remedies were available to the petitioner, and they had not been diligent in utilizing these remedies within the stipulated time frame.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Patna High Court upheld the rejection of Ajay Kumar’s appeal against the assessment order, citing a considerable delay beyond the statutory and extended time limits. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely compliance with legal procedures, especially in matters of taxation and appeals. It also underscores the principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court should be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances when no alternate remedies are available.
Read SC Judgment in this case: Supreme court disallows SLP, where alternative remedy not exercised by assessee
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed against the appellate order dated 17.10.2022, Annexure-4 which rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The appeal was from Annexure-1 order of assessment passed on 12.03.2022. The appellate order specifically noticed Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) which permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. The Appellate Authority also took into account the saving of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation. Therein, due to the pandemic situation limitation was saved between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. It was also directed that an appeal could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.05.2022, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 08.08.2022, with a delay of two months nineteen days from the date on which even the limitation period as stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, expired. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time.
The writ petition hence would stand dismissed.
