M/S Bhagwati Construction vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhagwati Construction, is challenging an appellate order dated 14.03.2023, which dismissed their appeal as delayed. The original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 05.03.2020, following a show cause notice issued on 07.02.2020, to which no response was filed. The petitioner did not challenge this order or pay the taxes. Subsequently, a notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was issued to banks to attach the petitioner's funds. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 11.03.2022, against the 05.03.2020 order. This appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14.03.2023, primarily on grounds of delay.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was significantly delayed. The original assessment order was dated 05.03.2020. While the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, an appeal could have been filed by 29.05.2022. Furthermore, Section 107(4) of the BGST Act allows for condonation of delay within one month of the expiry of the limitation period, meaning the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022. However, the petitioner filed the appeal only on 11.03.2023, which is 257 days after the extended limitation period expired. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as alternate remedies were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was within the prescribed limitation period as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner likely argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, possibly by invoking the Supreme Court's directions on limitation extension due to the pandemic and the provisions for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. Revenue's contention: The respondents would have argued that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, even after considering the Supreme Court's directions and the statutory provisions for condonation of delay, and therefore, the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing it.