Remedy Cannot Be Availed Under Writ Jurisdiction When Alternate Remedies Not Availed Efficaciously

Reason for Delay in Filing the Appeal

The petitioner delayed the appeal by over one year and five months beyond the extended limitation period, citing reasons that were not deemed satisfactory by the court. This significant delay became the crux of the legal contention.

Issue

The primary issue was whether the remedy under writ jurisdiction could be availed when the petitioner had not diligently pursued the available alternate remedies. This question is crucial as it addresses the balance between procedural compliance and judicial discretion.

Held

Legal Basis for the Decision

The Patna High Court referred to Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates that appeals must be filed within three months, with a possible extension of one month for justifiable delays.

Application of Limitation Period

The court also took into account the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which provided relief for delays occurring between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Despite this extended period, the petitioner’s appeal was still significantly late.

Petitioner’s Lack of Diligence

The court noted that Dubey failed to utilize the available remedies within the stipulated time. This lack of diligence in adhering to procedural timelines was a critical factor in the court’s decision.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

The Supreme Court’s guidance in the case of In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation was pivotal. It underscored that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked when alternate remedies are available and have not been exhausted effectively.

Analysis of the Case

Reasons for the Delayed Appeal

The petitioner’s reasons for delay did not satisfy the court, which highlighted the importance of timely action in legal proceedings. Delays, especially those exceeding a year beyond the permissible period, undermine the legal process’s integrity.

Importance of Timeliness

Timeliness in legal actions ensures that justice is served efficiently. The extended delay by the petitioner disrupted the orderly administration of justice and demonstrated a lack of serious commitment to following procedural rules.

Value of Exhausting Alternative Remedies

Exhausting all available remedies before approaching higher judicial forums like the High Court under writ jurisdiction ensures that all possible solutions have been considered. This step is essential for maintaining judicial order and respecting lower courts and tribunals’ authority.

The Law Behind the Decision

Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017

Section 107 specifies the appeal process under the BGST Act, including the time limits for filing appeals and the conditions for extending these limits. It is designed to ensure that appeals are handled promptly and efficiently.

Article 226 of the Constitution

Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue certain writs, but this power is to be used sparingly and not as a substitute for other available remedies. It emphasizes the extraordinary nature of writ jurisdiction, meant for situations where no other remedy exists.

Precedent Cases

Past cases like In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation provide a framework for understanding how courts view delays and the conditions under which writ jurisdiction can be invoked. These precedents guide current judicial decisions and ensure consistency in legal interpretations.