M/S Pramod Kumar Mehta vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while Section 107(4) of the BGST Act and Section 107 of the CGST Act do not grant power to extend the limitation period for filing appeals, and the Appellate Authority or a Constitutional Court cannot extend it beyond the prescribed period for delayed appeals, the issuance of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax provides a special procedure. The Court found no rationale for the March 31, 2023, cutoff date in the notification, especially when the notification was issued on November 2, 2023. Therefore, the Court allowed the petitioner to comply with the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 53/2023. Upon compliance, the impugned order of rejection would be set aside, and the first Appellate Authority would reconsider the appeal. If the petitioner fails to fulfill the notification's criteria, the impugned order will stand. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pramod Kumar Mehta, a sole proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order in appeal that rejected their appeal due to a delay of five days. The original order was passed by the Assessing Officer on April 27, 2023. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal). The petitioner contended that the appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The respondents are the Union of India and various authorities under the CGST and BGST Acts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, rejected for a five-day delay, can be considered under Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, dated November 2, 2023? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. They sought to avail the benefit of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, which provides a special procedure for filing appeals in certain cases. The petitioner implicitly argued that the cutoff date of March 31, 2023, in the notification is arbitrary and should not preclude them from relief. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the initial rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority implies reliance on the statutory time limits for filing appeals.