M/S Prince Sanitation vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that while Section 107(4) of the BGST Act and Article 226 of the Constitution do not grant power to extend the limitation period for filing appeals, the notification issued by the Central Government provides a special procedure. The Court found no rationale for the March 31, 2023, cut-off date in Notification No. 53/2023, considering the notification was issued on November 2, 2023. Therefore, the Court allowed the petitioner to comply with the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 53/2023. Upon compliance, the impugned order rejecting the appeal would be set aside, and the first Appellate Authority would reconsider the appeal. If the petitioner fails to fulfill the criteria of the notification, the impugned order would stand. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prince Sanitation, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Purnia Division, which rejected their appeal due to a delay of five days. The original order was passed by the proper officer on April 27, 2023. The petitioner's appeal was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. The High Court noted the existence of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated November 2, 2023, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which provided a special procedure for filing appeals. However, the notification specified that it applied to orders passed on or before March 31, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, whose appeal was rejected for being delayed by five days, can avail the benefit of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, given that the order under appeal was passed on April 27, 2023, and the notification applies to orders passed on or before March 31, 2023? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cut-off date of March 31, 2023, fixed in the notification is arbitrary and lacks rationale, especially since the notification itself was issued on November 2, 2023. They contended that the beneficial provision should be extended to them. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's case but relied on the statutory provisions and the terms of the notification. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.