M/S Binay Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Binay Construction, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order dated 08.08.2022. An appeal filed against this cancellation was dismissed by an order dated 14.01.2023. The dismissal was primarily on the grounds that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and also outside the extended period for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on a Government of India Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

Held

The Court held that the benefit of Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, is available to the petitioner. The Court found no exclusion in the Notification for cases where an appeal filed against the rejection of revocation or cancellation of registration was itself delayed under Section 107 of the Act. The Explanation to the Notification clarifies that it applies to persons who failed to apply for revocation within the time specified in Section 30, and this includes those whose appeals against the order of cancellation or rejection of revocation were dismissed on grounds of delay under Section 107. The Court reasoned that when a defaulter is enabled a benefit, it should also be available to those who availed the process but failed to file an appeal within the specified time under Section 107. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order (Annexure-5) and directed the petitioner to comply with the Notification, thereby enabling them to receive its benefits. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the benefit of Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, extends to a petitioner whose appeal against the order of cancellation of registration was rejected due to being filed beyond the period of limitation and the condonable delay period under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Notification No. 03/2023, read with its Explanation, should be applied to their case. They contended that the Notification's benefit, intended for those who failed to apply for revocation within the time specified under Section 30, should also cover situations where an appeal against the rejection of revocation or cancellation itself was dismissed for delay under Section 107 of the Act. Revenue's contention: The State Counsel argued that the appeal was rejected for being non-maintainable due to delay, not for failure to adhere to the time limit specified under Section 30(1) of the Act, implying the Notification might not be applicable.