2023 (10) TMI 1490 - HC - GST

Court Dismisses Appeal for Late Filing Under BGST Act; Highlights Alternate Remedies and Pending Amnesty Scheme.

The HC upheld the appellate order rejecting the appeal due to the petitioner's failure to file within the statutory timelines under the BGST Act, despite ... Rejection of appeal on the ground of delay - invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- As soon as the recommendation is given effect to, the petitioner/assessee gets a right to seek for restoration of the appeal filed before the first Appellate Authority. Reserving such liberty, if the recommendation is brought out as a notification or circular, the writ petition would stand dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking for restoration of the appeal or filing a fresh appeal, if and when the recommendation of the G.S.T. Council is brought out as notification/ circular/ amendment. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal due to delay was justified under the provisions of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act).Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked to challenge the appellate order when alternate remedies were available but not diligently pursued by the petitioner.The impact of the GST Council's recommendation for an amnesty scheme on the petitioner's ability to restore or file a fresh appeal.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification of the Appellate Order under BGST ActRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The BGST Act, specifically Section 107, allows an appeal to be filed within three months from the date of the order, with a possible extension of one month for delay condonation if satisfactory reasons are provided. The Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the appeal should have been filed by 12.08.2022, with an extended deadline for delay until 12.09.2022. The appeal was filed on 19.01.2023, well beyond the permissible period, leading to its rejection.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellate order and the petitioner's failure to file within the extended timeframe were central to the court's decision.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the statutory timelines under Section 107 and the Supreme Court's extension to conclude that the appeal was not filed within the allowable period.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner did not provide sufficient justification for the delay, and the court found no grounds to deviate from the statutory requirements.Conclusions: The appellate order was justified in rejecting the appeal due to the petitioner's failure to adhere to the prescribed timelines.Issue 2: Invocation of Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 226 of the Constitution allows for the issuance of writs by High Courts. However, it is generally not invoked when alternate remedies are available.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory remedies, particularly when the petitioner has not been diligent in pursuing those remedies.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's lack of diligence in filing the appeal within the extended period was a critical factor.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied principles governing the use of Article 226 to conclude that its invocation was unwarranted in this case.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the invocation of Article 226.Conclusions: The court declined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, given the availability of alternate remedies.Issue 3: Impact of GST Council's Amnesty Scheme RecommendationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The GST Council recommended an amnesty scheme, allowing appeals to be filed until 31st January 2024, subject to conditions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the potential impact of the GST Council's recommendation but noted that it had not yet been given legal effect through notifications or amendments.Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered the press release and the conditions outlined for availing the amnesty scheme.Application of Law to Facts: The court recognized that the petitioner could benefit from the amnesty scheme if it became legally effective.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court reserved the petitioner's right to seek restoration of the appeal if the recommendation is implemented.Conclusions: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue restoration or a fresh appeal if the amnesty scheme is enacted.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: '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.'Core Principles Established: The court reinforced the principle that statutory timelines must be adhered to and that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory remedies.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appellate order's rejection of the appeal was upheld due to the petitioner's failure to file within the allowable period. The court declined to invoke Article 226 but noted the potential impact of the GST Council's amnesty scheme if implemented.