Manoj Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 19.11.2022, which dismissed his appeal for non-compliance with Rule 108(3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The rule requires filing a certified copy of the assessment order within seven days of filing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed because the certified copy was not filed. The assessment order was dated 10.01.2021. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed on 10.03.2022, within the extended limitation period due to the Supreme Court's suo motu order saving limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. The certified copy was applied for on 08.03.2022 and received on 09.03.2022, but was not submitted in time by the authorized representative. The High Court noted that no GST Tribunal was constituted.

Held

The Court held that the appellate order dated 15.11.2022, which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 108(3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was not justified. The Court considered the Supreme Court's order saving limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, which meant the appeal filed on 10.03.2022 was within time. While acknowledging the delay in filing the certified copy, the Court took into account the absence of a GST Tribunal for further appeal. Therefore, the Court set aside the appellate order and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh on merits. The petitioner was directed to file the certified copy within three weeks of receiving the judgment, upon which the appeal would be restored. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses, especially in the context of pandemic-related extensions and the absence of a statutory tribunal, should not automatically lead to the dismissal of an appeal on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 108(3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was justified, considering the circumstances of filing the certified copy and the prevailing COVID-19 related limitation extensions. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the permissible time, considering the Supreme Court's order saving limitation due to the pandemic. The delay in filing the certified copy was due to entrustment to an authorized representative and should not lead to dismissal, especially given the absence of a GST Tribunal. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. Revenue's Contention: The State counsel submitted that the assessment order was dated 10.01.2021, and the appeal was grossly delayed. They also pointed to the non-compliance with Rule 108(3) regarding the timely filing of the certified copy.