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

Held

The Court held that the appeal, dismissed for being beyond the statutory period under Section 107 of the BGST Act, could be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, subject to the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax. The reasoning was that this notification provides a special procedure for filing appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act, extending the time limit to 31st January 2024. The crucial condition for maintainability, as per paragraph 3 of the notification, requires the appellant to pay the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, along with 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (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 (Annexure-6) and directed the petitioner to satisfy these conditions by 31.01.2024. If satisfied, the appeal would be considered on merits; otherwise, it would stand rejected. 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 notification's remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mohammad Sakil, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) Purnea Division, which dismissed their appeal on grounds of delay. The appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows for three months to file an appeal and an additional month with a satisfactory explanation for delay. The rejected appeal was beyond even this extended one-month period. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority (Annexure-6). The Court noted a subsequent Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which extended the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act on or before 31.03.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, dismissed for being beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, could be restored in light of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that the subsequent notification provided a mechanism to revive their delayed appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue. However, the initial dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority implies the revenue's stance was that the appeal was time-barred as per Section 107 of the BGST Act. The Court's analysis of the notification and its conditions suggests the revenue's position would be that compliance with the notification's stipulations is mandatory for restoration.