Re Sustainability Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sustainability Limited, is challenging an appellate order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals). This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal for two reasons: the absence of a certified copy of the impugned order and a delay of three days in filing the appeal. The impugned order that the petitioner sought to appeal was dated 06.12.2021. The petitioner filed their appeal on 31.05.2022. The petitioner argues that the appeal was filed within the permissible time limits, considering the Supreme Court's directions on the extension of limitation due to the pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner on 31.05.2022 was within the time permitted. It reasoned that Section 107 of the BGST Act provides three months for filing an appeal and a further one month for condonation of delay. Considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods, and the specific provisions of the BGST Act, the appeal was deemed to be filed within the permissible timeframe. The Court also held that the procedural requirement of producing a certified copy of the impugned order was relaxed by a circular, and therefore, the appeal should have been considered on merits even with a self-attested copy. The appellate order dated 26.08.2023 was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the Appellate Authority for disposal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner on 31.05.2022 was within the time prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation. The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed within the statutory period of three months for filing an appeal, plus the further period of one month for condonation of delay, and that the Supreme Court's extension of limitation period should be considered. The revenue argued that the Supreme Court ordered 90 days, not three months, and thus the appeal was delayed. 2. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-production of a certified copy of the impugned order, despite the existence of a circular relaxing this procedural requirement. The petitioner argued that a circular (Annexure-P/7) relaxed the requirement for a certified copy, allowing for a self-attested copy to be considered. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this point.