Rakesh Ranjan vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Ranjan, an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), challenged orders passed under Section 73 of the BGST Act for the assessment year 2020-2021. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority but was dismissed due to delay. The appellate order noted that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed three-month period for filing an appeal and the additional one-month period for condonation of delay, even after considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The appeal was filed on 19.07.2022, whereas it should have been filed by 28.06.2022, even with condonation. The petitioner then raised a new contention regarding the absence of a digital signature on the impugned orders, citing Rule 26(3) of the BGST Rules, 2017, and relying on judgments from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was indeed barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority correctly applied Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and condonation of delay for a further one month. Even considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic, the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period. The Court found no power to condone delay beyond the statutory limits. On the issue of digital signatures, the Court held that Rule 26(3) of the BGST Rules, 2017, permits authentication by other modes of signature or verification notified by the Board. The Court observed that the impugned orders were signed by the Assistant Commissioner and were auto-populated as per Section 169 of the BGST Act, which allows service by making documents available on the common portal. Furthermore, Section 160 of the BGST Act provides that assessment proceedings shall not be invalid merely by reason of a mistake, defect, or omission if they are in substance and effect in conformity with the Act. The Court also noted that the contention regarding the absence of a digital signature was raised late, not before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Authority, and therefore, did not commend itself to the Court. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and the directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. 2. Whether the absence of a digital signature on the orders passed under the BGST Act renders them invalid, in light of Rule 26(3) of the BGST Rules, 2017 and Section 169 of the BGST Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal was not barred by limitation, implicitly arguing for a broader interpretation of the limitation period or condonation. The primary argument shifted to the invalidity of the orders due to the lack of digital signatures, citing Rule 26(3) of the BGST Rules, 2017, and relying on State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood (Supreme Court) and Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court). Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the appeal was indeed time-barred, as the Appellate Authority correctly applied Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions. Regarding the digital signature issue, the revenue would have argued, based on the Court's reasoning, that other modes of verification suffice and that Section 160 of the BGST Act protects against invalidity due to minor defects, especially if the order has been acted upon.