M/S Bhagwati Construction vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bhagwati Construction, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Commissioner, Appeal Sale Tax, Magadh Division, Gaya). The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay in filing. The petitioner had received a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the BGST Act, 2017, for the period 2019-20. An order dated 12.02.2021 imposed a tax and penalty totaling Rs. 15,68,723.98 for September 2019 and Rs. 2,17,709.00 for October 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the order dated 12.02.2021 on 11.03.2023.
Held
The Court held that the present case is covered by a previous judgment of the same High Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). In that judgment, the Court had opined that condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be against the legislative intent. The Court reasoned that while the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226, it cannot disregard substantive provisions of a statute. Therefore, the Court concluded that it cannot entertain a writ application filed after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. Applying this principle, the Court found that the petitioner admittedly filed the appeal against the order dated 12.02.2021 on 11.03.2023, which was rejected on 14.03.2023 due to a delay of nine months and ten days. Since the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone delay for only 30 days, the impugned order rejecting the appeal needs no interference. The writ application was accordingly dismissed as not entertainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority, under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, has the power to condone a delay of more than 30 days in filing an appeal? 2. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed by the BGST Act, 2017, when the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they filed a statutory appeal against the order dated 12.01.2021. (The judgment later refers to the order as 12.02.2021, which is assumed to be a typographical error in the judgment text for the appeal filing date). The specific grounds for challenging the rejection of the appeal on delay were not explicitly detailed by the petitioner's counsel in the provided text, beyond stating the appeal was preferred. Revenue/State's Contention: The State submitted that the petitioner filed the appeal on 11.03.2023, which was delayed by 9 months and 10 days. The Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited to 30 days under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the rejection of the appeal was justified.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR) 3 22-07-2026 Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and AC to learned AG for the State.
In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 14.03.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. GY/GST-81/2022-23, whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal.
2/4
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner is registered person under BGST Act, 2017 and is engaged in construction of Road, civil work, contract awarded by different government department in the State of Bihar and mainly NTPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 07.12.2020, it was served with Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the BGST Act, 2017 for the year 2019-20 and vide order dated 12.02.2021 imposed a tax penalty to the extent of Rs. 2,17,709.00/- for the period October 2019 to March 2020 and Rs. 14,26,112.70/- as tax and Rs. 1,42,611.28/- as penalty totally Rs. 15,68,723.98/- for September 2019 was proposed. Thereafter vide order dated 12.01.2021, passed the impugned order under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act,2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against order dated 12.01.2021, it has preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority on 11.03.2023. 6. Per Contra, Assistant Counsel for learned A.G. Bihar submits that the petitioner against impugned order 12.02.2021, has preferred the appeal on 11.03.2023 by a delay of 9 months and 10 days. The Appellate Authority has power to condone a delay of only 30 days under the provision of Section 3/4 107(4) of BGST Act, 2017 and the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner after the delay of more than 9 months.
Heard the parties and on appreciation of the respective submissions, we are of the opinion that present case is covered by judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vs. State of Bihar & Ors), the relevant paragraph 10.3 is reproduce here in below:- Therefore, the condonation of delay by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India in filing of appeal under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017 in our opinion, will be against the legislative intent manifested in the provision of BGST Act 2017. It is true that High Court has wide juri iction under Article 226 of constitution of India but does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provision of a Statute. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that this Court can’t entertain the present writ application filed after expiry of prescribed time limit.
In present case, the petitioner admittedly has filed appeal against order dated 12.02.2021 on 11.03.2023, which was rejected on 14.03.2023 on the ground of delay of nine months and ten days in filing of appeal. The learned Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay for a period of 30 days only. Therefore, impugned order dated 14.03.2025 needs no interference by this court.
4/4
Accordingly, the present writ application, in light of the findings of this court to the extent that delay cannot be condoned vide Judgment dated 14.07.2026 in CWJC No.- 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) is not entertainable and is dismissed.
rohit/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.