M/S Aneja Constructions (INDIA) Limited vs. The State Of Bihar
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's claim for refund was time-barred as the application was not filed within the two-year period stipulated by Section 54(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition, stating that the reason provided by the petitioner for the delay (a dispute with another party) was not satisfactory, nor could the limitation period be extended under the aforementioned section. The Court explicitly stated that it found 'absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition'. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Facts
M/s Aneja Constructions (India) Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking to accept its refund application, either through the department's portal or in physical form. The refund was claimed for the tax periods of 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner admitted that the refund application was not filed within the period prescribed by Section 54(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reason provided for the delay was a dispute with another party, respondent number 4, TRF Limited. The Court was not satisfied that this reason was reasonable and also found that the limitation period under Section 54(1) could not be extended.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to acceptance of its refund application for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19, despite the application being filed beyond the prescribed two-year limitation period under Section 54(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a dispute with a third party prevented them from filing the refund application within the stipulated time, implying a request for condonation of delay or an exception to the limitation period. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, contended that the limitation period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is absolute and cannot be extended, especially when the reason for delay is not considered reasonable by the Court. The revenue did not advance any specific arguments beyond relying on the statutory provision.
Sections Cited
Section 54(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13830 of 2021 ====================================================== M/s Aneja Constructions (India) Limited through its Authorized Signatory Rakesh Kumar, aged 43 years, Male, son of Sri Bhiswanath Ram, resident of Basbitty, PS-Supaul, Dist. Supaul, having Registered office at V-21, IInd Floor, Rajaouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary cum Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.
The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Central Circle, Patna.
The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Central Circle, Patna.
TRF Limited through its General Manager having Regd. Office at 11, Station Road, Burmamines, Jamshedpur-831007 (Jharkhand).
The Project Manager, TRF LIMITED (site office), NTPC, Barh Dist. Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandeep Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vivek Prasad (GP-7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.