M/S Maa Bhagwati Trading Company vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Bhagwati Trading Company, through its proprietor Mahesh Prasad Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The petition sought to set aside an order dated 14.3.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Darbhanga Division, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner also challenged an earlier order of cancellation of registration dated 11/23.8.2021. The appeal before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed solely on the ground of being time-barred. The petitioner's counsel sought liberty to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the appellate order.

Held

The Court noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was admittedly time-barred, which led to its dismissal. The petitioner's counsel then sought liberty to challenge the appellate order dated 14.3.2024 by availing the remedy provided under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted this liberty. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the granted liberty. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation of registration order or the validity of the time-bar, as the petition was disposed of based on the petitioner's request for alternative remedy. The ratio decidendi is that a party aggrieved by an order dismissing their appeal as time-barred can be granted liberty to pursue a higher statutory remedy if such a remedy is available and sought.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was maintainable despite being time-barred, and if not, whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal order on that ground. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought liberty to challenge the appellate order dated 14.3.2024 by availing the remedy under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. No specific argument was recorded regarding the merits of the time-bar issue or the cancellation of registration order. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the appellate order itself, which was under challenge, dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation.