M/S Mohammad Sakil (Sole Proprietorship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the appeal, which was dismissed for being delayed beyond the statutory period under Section 107 of the BGST Act, should be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax. These conditions include paying the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax amount (subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees), with at least 20% of this 12.5% paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The Court set aside the impugned order of dismissal and directed the petitioner to comply with these conditions by 31.01.2024. If the conditions are met, the appeal will be considered on merits. The Court also clarified that this benefit extends to other cases where writ petitions were rejected solely on grounds of delay, allowing assessees to invoke the remedy under the notification.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mohammad Sakil, challenged an order in appeal filed under the Bihar Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017 (BGST Act). The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) for being delayed beyond the period stipulated in Section 107 of the BGST Act. Section 107 allows three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one month if a satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. The petitioner's appeal was rejected as it fell outside even this extended period. Subsequently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, extending the time for filing appeals against orders passed on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, dismissed solely on the ground of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, can be restored in light of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the subsequent notification provides a special procedure for filing appeals, even those that were previously dismissed for delay. They contended that this notification effectively extends the period for filing appeals and allows for the restoration of dismissed appeals, provided the conditions stipulated in the notification are met. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue or state respondents regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the new notification. The court's decision appears to be based on the interpretation and application of the said notification.