M/S Geosence Granite And Marble vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Geosence Granite and Marble, through its proprietor Jyoti Kumari Vishwakarma, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division, which rejected their appeal (Appeal No. GST/PS-2/23-24) dated 27.06.2024. The rejection was solely on the grounds that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period as stipulated under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, without considering the merits of the appeal. The petitioner also prayed for a mandamus to condone a delay of 7 months and 18 days in filing the appeal and to revoke the cancellation of their GST registration (No. 10AHDPV8131DIZQ), citing health issues and up-to-date clearance of liabilities.
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had not made out a case. The dismissal was based on the pronouncements of a co-ordinate bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2441 of 2024 and a decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s Addichem Specialty LLP vs. Special Commissioner 1, Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr. {W.P. (C) 14279 of 2024}. These precedents, as submitted by the respondents, were considered to be squarely applicable to the present case concerning the belated filing of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's case regarding the reasons for the delay or the cancellation of registration, relying entirely on the cited judicial pronouncements that apparently did not favour condonation of such significant delays in filing appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, without adjudicating on the merits of the case, particularly when the delay was attributed to health issues and the petitioner claimed to have cleared all liabilities? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was not intentional and was due to health issues, and that substantial justice would be served by condoning the delay of 7 months and 18 days and considering the appeal on its merits. They sought revocation of the cancellation of their registration. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through the Standing Counsel, submitted that the matter was squarely covered by a co-ordinate bench decision dated 27.02.2024 in C.W.J.C. No. 2441 of 2024 (Maruti Store Versus State of Bihar and others) and a Delhi High Court decision in M/s Addichem Specialty LLP vs. Special Commissioner 1, Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr. {W.P. (C) 14279 of 2024} dated 16.12.2024, both dealing with belatedly filed appeals before the Appellate Authority.
Sections Cited
Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 11-02-2025 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 09.12.2022 of cancellation of registration (IMPUGNED ORDER) passed by Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Circle, Patna, District-Patna (herein after appellate authority) whereby and wherein appellate authority has rejected the appeal no- GST/PS-2/23-24 vide its order dated 27.06.2024 2/3 merely for the reason that the appeal not filed within limitation period as per section- 107(4) of Bihar Goods and Services Tax, 2017 without going into the merit of appeal. (ii) For issuance of mandamus to the respondent no-2 to condone delay of 7 Months 18 Days (as per order under challenge) and thereafter for revocation of cancellation of registration no- 10AHDPV8131DIZQ in the interest of substantial justice to the petitioner as there is no substantial delay as well as the petitioner has up-to-date cleared liabilities and the delay is not intentional and because of health issues. (iii) For any other relief/(s) applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Learned counsel for the Respondents on 07.02.2025 submitted that present matter is squarely covered by co-ordinate Bench decision dated 27.02.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2441 of 2024 in the Maruti Store Versus State of Bihar and others case insofar as belatedly filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Addichem Specialty LLP vs. Special Commissioner 1, Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr. {W.P. (C) 14279 of 2024 and CM APPL. 59773 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024.}.
3/3
In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, the petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, the present Writ petition stands dismissed in the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements.
manish/- (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.02.2025 Transmission Date NA
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.