Rupesh Kumar Manjhi vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rupesh Kumar Manjhi, failed to file returns for the 2017-2018 period. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax cancelled his GST registration on December 28, 2019. The petitioner appealed this cancellation to the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), who dismissed the appeal on July 30, 2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking to quash both the cancellation order and the appellate order, and to restore his registration to enable him to file returns and pay taxes.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority ought to have been indulgent in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, particularly in view of the prevalent COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended limitation periods for statutory compliance, and this fact seemed to have escaped the Appellate Authority's attention. The Court also opined that the Assessing Officer should have invoked its power under Section 30 of the Act, considering the petitioner's bona fides, and withdrawn the cancellation order to afford the petitioner an opportunity to comply with statutory provisions by filing returns and depositing taxes. The Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to file returns and deposit taxes within two weeks. The Court quashed and set aside both the cancellation order and the appellate order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity to comply with the law and principles of natural justice. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, considering the provisions of Section 30 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the prevailing circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority should have been more indulgent and condoned the delay, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended limitation periods for statutory compliance. The petitioner also contended that the cancellation of registration by the Assessing Officer was premature and that the Assessing Officer should have used powers under Section 30 of the Act to allow filing of returns and payment of taxes. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.