M/S M.B. Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.B. Construction, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 29.08.2020. The petitioner had filed an appeal against a rejection of its revocation of cancellation application, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) on 21.06.2022, due to a delay of 138 days. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 06.02.2023, significantly beyond the extended limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding COVID-19 related extensions. The petitioner also failed to avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023 for restoration of cancelled registrations. The judgment notes that the petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation and did not file a reply to it.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was not maintainable due to gross delay. The Court noted that Section 107 of the BGST Act permits an appeal within three months and condonation of delay within a further month. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, the Court found that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible extended period. The cancellation order was dated 29.08.2020, and the extended limitation period, considering the Supreme Court's directions, would have expired around 29.05.2022. The appeal was filed on 06.02.2023. The Court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked where alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent. The Court also noted the petitioner's failure to avail the Amnesty Scheme and the lack of dispute regarding the show-cause notice or its reply. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was maintainable given the significant delay, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 concerning the extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues for condonation of delay, as they availed the appellate remedy, albeit delayed. They likely relied on the Supreme Court's directions to extend limitation periods during the pandemic. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the appeal was filed with gross delay, exceeding the permissible period even after considering the Supreme Court's extension. They highlighted that the appeal was filed approximately seven months after the extended limitation period expired, making it non-maintainable.