M/S Kumar Distributors Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 20, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal). The Court held that the appeal was erroneously dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. The Court acknowledged that the cause of action arose during the COVID-19 pandemic and that authorities were aware of directions to exclude pandemic periods for limitation. Therefore, on this short ground, the appellate order was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) within four weeks. The authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months from its filing, by a reasoned and speaking order, following principles of natural justice and affording due opportunity to the parties to present relevant materials. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Facts

M/s Kumar Distributors Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated April 20, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) of State Taxes, Patna Western Division. The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 16,98,239.94 under Section 140 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 117 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. However, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax had raised a demand notice dated August 10, 2019, for Rs. 24,67,543.00, including interest and penalty. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court to exclude pandemic periods for limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) was barred by limitation, considering the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. They relied on directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court which excluded the period of the pandemic for computing limitation periods. Therefore, the appeal should not have been dismissed on grounds of limitation. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state regarding the limitation period. The Additional Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating on the merits of the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit.